Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:MichaelMaggs

I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur morrison.jpgEdit

Hi, Think what I have posted on this request is correct, and although I believe I am 100% positive, belief is not enough on WC. Would be grateful if you can cast your eyes over it. P.g.champion (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2017Edit

Hi Michael, I see you are active with changes in the technical infrastructure, without having me involved. That is not handy. It is possible to have same changes implemented in the UK, but please coordinate this with me, otherwise it likely will not work. Also concerning this edit, pointing to Wikidata is useless. The column is for lists, lists where people can look up the monuments in a certain area. Wikidata does not provide that. Please provide a link there where people can actually find the lists of monuments. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Romaine, thanks for the message. We're working on the basis of the four UK campaigns (gb-eng, gb-sct, gb-wls, gb-nir) being exactly the same as in previous years. Entrants will use a tool (written by Magnus) to locate monuments on an interactive map and will be passed on to the upload wizard for the relevant campaign, with most of the required fields being pre-filled.
I'd understood the list at Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2017/Participating countries being for organisers rather than potential contestants, but if you think it may be useful for the latter I can add a link there to Magnus's tool once it's been made live. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Romaine, I've now updated the entry in the list to the live link. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! However, it is confusing. I tried a town where I have been, and clicked on the link of the town but did not find an upload link (was on the Wikidata page). I would have the design of this page changed, as this definitely will be confusing for participants. Only when I looked closer and one page back, I saw the show button, but that was not clear the first time I came on that page that there people are supposed to go and upload.
When I found the upload link for a monument, testing it, I found that it adds two categories: Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in England + Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United Kingdom. The second one never should be added manually by the form (this may only be done by the contest template). The first one should also not be there. I will make sure that if people upload through the England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland upload wizard, the contest template is added with gb-eng (etc) in it, in such way that the image is added to both the WLM UK category as the WLM England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland category.
Please make sure that the adding of the two categories is removed from the uploading tool!! Thanks - Romaine (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  Implemented - When someone uploads an image in September, based on which upload form used, it is automatically added to the category of the UK + England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. Please make sure the tool never ever adds these categories! Thanks ! Romaine (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
PS: Also the category:WLM-UK 2017 unfiltered 09-01 etc is added by the upload form itself automatically, and should not be added by the tool. Please also remove this category from the tool. Romaine (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've passed it on to Magnus. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Romaine, presumably adding a new category Potential image for Wikidata item is still ok. We intend to use that for a later wikidata bot run. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for passing it on, this really must be fixed before the contest starts. Regarding the category of Potential image for Wikidata, I understood what it is for. It would not have my preference to add it this way (because people can remove it during uploading and the category field I would like to recommend to be used for categorising the images in the right geographical are (etc)), but I do not see an alternative. So yes, that one can stay.
I do like to make a recommendation. The tool you use connects monuments to their geographical area and Wikidata, which is great. What we normally request people to do is adding the geographical cultural heritage category (like Cultural heritage in ...), or otherwise the category for the municipality or town. This data is available in Wikidata! Therefore I would strongly recommend that if someone selects a city/town in the UK, connected to Wikidata, that automatically the Commons category (P373 or Commons sitelink category) is inserted in the too, and upload link. That would make the work of both the uploaders, local organisers and Commons users who categorize images much easier. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Magnus amended his tool last night to incorporate your requested changes. We can discuss how to add more informative Commons categories, per your recommendation, but that's not easy since most of the Wikidata entries have information taken from the official listings which refer to old administrative boundaries that changed many years ago. Adding town-based categories would be nice, but the town is not normally a separate property but only part of the address. As the expected error rate would be quite large it's probably best to use manual or semi-automated processes to improve the categorisation at a later stage. Pinging some users who might have views on this: User:Magnus Manske, User:Richard Nevell, User:WereSpielChequers, User:KTC. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
My main concern especially with grade I listed buildings is that they wind up in the category for that building, or for the few that don't yet have a category a county level category "grade I listed buildings in Essex" etc. No objection to Wikidata being involved, providing we can automate at least as much of the categorisation as in the past. With so many photos already in the UK there aren't that many targets left - is there any way to promote targets in this contest where we have no images or no good images? WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that we've got all grade II buildings on Wikidata, there are very many targets to photograph (though most won't be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, of course). On the competition map, sites with no image on Wikidata are shown in red; ones with an image are shown in blue. There's no easy way to find sites with missing or only poor images on Commons, though. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The Wikidata Free Image Search Tool can find Wikidata items without an image and suggests files which may be relevant. Here's an example for multiple enclosure hillforts (put together for the Hillforts Atlas project). It's run by Sparql query, which I'm not entirely fluent in; I tried something for listed buildings but I think the set was too large. Maybe a query looking at just Grade I listed buildings would work. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There are places near me with images, in some cases categories of images on commons but no image on Wikidata. If people fill the gaps on wikidata how quickly does that percolate through to the map, and might it not be worth sending out an email to the UK list explaining the issue, how to solve it and asking people to check their area and any missing ones? I remember some very upset emails on the mailing list a few years back from someone who had driven across a whole county to photograph some buildings and then found it was covered on commons. I and others did quite a bit of work to get the Grade I and Grade II* lists populated with categories and images, has that been fed through to wikidata? WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The pins on the map should update immediately when people update Wikidata, but it's not been possible to automate Wikidata changes when a new image is uploaded (due to WMF restrictions on what data third party tools are allowed access to, when using a Wikimedia login). Instead, images are put in the category Potential image for Wikidata item to help with manual or script updating of Wikidata based on the Wikidata item mentioned on the Commons page. I'm not sure what's been done on Wikidata regarding the existing grade I and II* Commons images, but most of the buildings I've looked at on the map are showing a blue pin. Experienced Wikidata volunteers who could help out would be more than welcome. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I created Category:Rowley's House, Shrewsbury three years ago, and have just added five barely categorised images to it from this years WLM. That building is II* The competition should in my view be categorising such images in an automated way, I don't mind doing a big chunk of the rest if the system has been setup to use the work I and others have done before. I'm not so keen if the system has been setup on the assumption that people like me will categorise all the images and there is no need to automate things. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
That example and those like it where the category has a Wikidata id (Q17542584) which uniquely identifies the building can and should be automated after the contest. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments queryEdit

Hi Michael, I have a question regarding Wiki Loves Monuments in UK. I'm not familiar with what is "forbidden" to be online and what is not, but I've noticed that many of the listed buildings, for example University of Oxford, has no interior images. I would like to upload for example one from Bodleian Library, interior image. Is it ok? Thank you - Elena Tatiana Chis (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Elana. Yes, it's perfectly OK under UK copyright law to upload interior architecture shots taken within buildings to which the public are admitted. As you've noticed, those are often missing from our collections, so such images can be very valuable. If someone asks you to stop while photographing, though, you should comply. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

FoP queryEdit

Hi Michael,

Just had someone ask me about the contents of Category:Goodwood Festival of Speed monuments and whether or not these images would be covered under the UK FoP. My thought (based on Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Permanent_vs_temporary is that the artwork is permanently on display in a venue open to the public for the full life expectancy of the artwork, although the artwork itself is only temporarily displayed with a new sculpture every year. What would your thoughts be on this, given there's both a permanent and temporary nature about the artwork ? Nick (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If Michael doesn’t mind and forgives me butting in here: It appears that Goodwood commissions these as ephemeral sculptures. Which would pass FOP as they only live for the moment, in a place open to the public and erected there for the purpose that the public can view and admire them (only to be then, get unceremoniously cut-up and carted off to the scrap yard). Also, image File:EType sculpture.jpg is authored by Bruno Postle who notes: “this sculpture weighs 178 tons.” and he should know, because he is the engineer that turns the artist concepts into reality for Goodwood. See: jaguar-sculpture, and [] Goodwood festival of speed. This is not saying this is the sole and whole reason, etc., why WC should keep these images, rather I am adding it as background information. For, if the question has come up once, it may do again in the future. A well thought out justification by us to cover all these Goodwood images may save future editors much time and repetition concerning FOP debates for these images. Then, we can add it to the intro text to Category:Goodwood Festival of Speed monuments linking back to this discussion. Thoughts, Michael, Nick and all? P.g.champion (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nick, P.g.champion. I don't believe that there is any decided case under UK law which has turned on the question of whether an artwork is ”permanently situated” in a public place. The Commons text you refer to sets out specifically the situation under German law (see the heading to the section), and as this is not a matter of European Union copyright there is no reason to suppose that the law in the UK will be the same. In any event, as I understand the German position, permanence refers to an artwork which is displayed in public for the full term of its natural life (for example an ice sculpture which is left in position until it melts), and not to an artwork that is deliberately destroyed at the end of a temporary exhibition.
Where there is no guidance from case law, words in UK statutes have to be given their normal, natural, meaning. I think it highly unlikely that an artwork designed to be exhibited for a defined short period, and then removed, could be held to be “permanently situated”. Its purpose is in fact the exact opposite, namely to be “temporarily situated”. It cannot I think matter from the legal point of view whether the artwork is removed and stored in a shed, or whether it is removed and destroyed. It would make no sense for the copyright status of a publicly displayed artwork to change retrospectively depending on whether the owner decides to keep or destroy it; and in many cases the artwork's subsequent history can never be known to the photographer or indeed to anyone other than the artwork’s owner.
Although we don't seem to have anything written up about this, I have myself deleted quite a number of similar images using this rationale in the past, and none have ever been successfully challenged. It’s not too difficult to find images and categories of images where this issue is of concern, and I do think it would be worth getting this agreed and documented. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Because WC is international and thereby crosses legal boundaries as well. What would, in your opinion, be the right approach on WC to bring this issue to a wider audience - for discussion and resolution? Looks like the three of us ( and maybe many others ) have a tacit understanding that the temp/perm definitions are unclear. Obviously, we can not make any legal decelerations because this is outside of our remit but we can find out (on the basis of probabilities) where WC stands. Not just for the Goodwood exhibits but for all others. P.g.champion (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: because of our rule that images have to be free both in the US and also in the country where the image was taken we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution to this. Different countries have different rules and the community has decided that we need to respect all of them to the best of our ability. So far as the UK is concerned, our written instructions do accurately reflect UK law, but there is a gap in the statute that can only be filled by educated opinion such as the one I have expressed above. To be honest, the entire FoP page is such a practical and legal mess that it needs re-structuring and re-writing from scratch. That's a huge job, though, that I don't at the moment have the energy to get involved with. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the person who originally asked about this. I have the impression Commons shouldn't be hosting these images, although it might well be possible to get the artist to donate one or two. I don't have the heart—or the gall—to propose them all for deletion, but I'm thinking someone should (with a note left on the talk page of the en.wikipedia article). Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that these images ought to be deleted, and I'd support anyone who wants to open a DR. Would prefer not to do it myself, as I'm quite involved in Wiki Loves Monuments at the moment. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have agreed to have come to an impasse. Without clear case law we can not unequivocally give these images the OK. Yet, instinctively it would seem that any court would recognize that these are ephemeral. In permeant works, consideration has to be given to such things as permanency of foundations, anti‑corrosion treatments etc. So from the outset the 'intention' is that of temporary. Also, as these large projects take so long to commission, plan and erect, that the next contenders/replacements are probably already being considered before the paint on the last has dried. Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. Admiral Lord Nelson got round a similar problem by raising his telescope to his blind eye and declared “I see no ships” So, I'm happy to employ some masterful inactivity for now. P.g.champion (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Adrian EvansEdit

Please see conversation at User talk:Adrian Evans Photography. User is having some problem with a couple of his photos not being included in the competition. Can you fix? I spotted one of the images at QIC and suspected the sky may be replaced. This seems to be the case. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  •   Done. Thanks for the note.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "MichaelMaggs".