User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2007 2008 October, 2009 April, October, November, December, 2010 January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, 2011 2011 January, 2011 February, 2011 March, 2011 May, 2011 June 2011 * 2012 * 2013 * 2014 * 2015 * 2016 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2020 * 2021 * 2022 * 2023

Photographs by Loek Tangel in Weert

I see we've been busy with it at the same time. Well done, my friendǃ Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bath City FC photos

Sorry, but on Friday I went into the club/ Twerton Park itself, and all of the photos on there are owned by the club, the ones you requested to be deleted were actually put on the site by the club photographer himself, you can email them if you'd like to.

No, I didn't take the photos, but the club photographer and club directors, said they own all the images that are at Twerton Park. At the end of the day could you maybe just give us a bit of a break mate? The clubs run by volunteers, we're not exactly a high profile club, don't really need people deleting Wikipedia images that we own, cheers.

Club Director email: <jon.bickley@bathcityfootballclub.co.uk>

Club Director email: <jane.jones@bathcityfootballclub.co.uk>

Club photographer email: <s.howe@sky.com>

Joseph1891 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This: File:Bath City old women’s team.jpg is 70 years old. This is 110. You described it as "own work" under your own name. It's just as unlikely to have been taken by any surviving club photographer.
If someone owns the rights to a photo, then they might be able to license it here so that it can be used. But still, we have to make some attempt to credit it properly (even to "club photographer" or "unknown") and not to an uploader who certainly didn't take it. (If you do, it's "obviously" wrong and inevitably someone will decide to delete it. Probably a few years from now, when you're no longer watching and able to respond.) In such a case, sorting this properly beforehand will usually involve an official email from the licence holder (such as from an official club email account) to COM:VRT.
It's not about "giving you a break". This site is (mostly) run by volunteers too. It's not my problem to get images uploaded here (and if I ever take that on, it's unlikely to be for football) and I'm not even in any position to do it. I can assist and advise, but really this stuff has to be "pushed" from the rights holder, not "pulled" from this end.
Take a look at COM:VRT. Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer. We should be able to get to a point where these can be uploaded here with {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} licences, with a VRT statement from the club saying, "We hold the rights to these photos and we license them". Take a read of the Creative Commons website too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, that was actually quite helpful, being fairly knew to Wikipedia I’m not sure how you go about the process of them providing an official license? Do you think it would be possible to give me a walk through, So do the officials at the club just need to send an email to the VRT? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read COM:LICENSING and COM:VRT, also http://creativecommons.org
Make a list of all the images you're working on. For each of them, give a clear title, a source, a date of photography, a photographer, a rights holder, and the licence they're being offered with here – I'd suggest {{CC-by-sa-4.0}}.
If these are "unknown 'tog" and "Property of the club" then you're good. Whatever age they are, although it's good to know this.
If some are "local newspaper", then that's a problem. The club doesn't hold the rights to newspaper photos. These might not be usable.
If they're definitely old enough, then claim that they're now public domain and you won't need to license them.
There's a problem here that incomplete metadata leads to deletion. This is wrong, but it goes on all the time (some admins shouldn't be). If an image is licensed here (because the club owns it), that beats whether it's public domain or not and so it doesn't need the photographer, age, or the date of the photographer's death to be known. But some here will try to delete it (wrongly) if they aren't known. So state clearly "unknown" and don't hint at a vague PD claim if you can't back it up. On Commons, all photographers are assumed to live for 300 years, so even a 110 year old photo will be challenged (which is wrong, as UK law defines the cut-off for unknown claims as much later).
Then get someone (club secretary?) to send this list to VRT from an "official" email address, or upload it to some official club web page.
Get this list right first time, because otherwise a few of the admins will latch onto the uploads and your account as "bad" and will then do everything in their power to delete all future uploads and block you. This is wrong, but it's how it works here. We leave bear traps lying out, then shoot anyone who gets caught in them because if they weren't a bear, what were they doing in a bear trap? It's one of the worst things about Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate, so have I got this right? Make a list of all the photos with all the necessary details next to them email them to the club, the club then emails the list to VRT, and VRT will upload the photos? Joseph1891 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a VRT person (maybe find the list of them and ask one of them), so I don't know the precise details (it's also very secretive). But you can treat stuff as "VRT have been notified" and you upload them, giving the same descriptions you've also sent to VRT. VRT will (eventually) check this and then stamp the uploads with a template, which should sort it for good.
VRT offer some templates for doing this: Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? / Commons:Email templates which might be useful.
VRT isn't actually licensing (you do that on the upload, same as usual). Really it's more about confirming that the licence wasn't just issued (falsely) by some random drive-by account, but by the traceable person who does hold the rights. Who might even be the same person, but they confirm it "wearing their official hat". Like the old thing of writing it on company letterheaded notepaper.
If the images are already up, I'm happy to run an eye over the draft list for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can I upload them first? With the correct license, then ask the club to send an email to VRT? Joseph1891 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Joseph1891 (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only just noticed that. Yes, do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

your comment in the discussion at the time was not related to the photo in question. So I don't understand why it is there. I deleted it because it has nothing to do with the discussion. It's pointless discussing a photo in another DR. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something confusing

There are 2 pages on Wikipedia for the same class of engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCR_Class_8K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_O4 What do we do? 89.240.14.140 10:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do nothing. That's Wikipedia. A separate project, so they get to do whatever they wish. If you want to get involved, go over there and discuss it with them.
As the O4s were built under the LNER, then it's not unreasonable to have the pages separate (it might not be best, but the argument can be made for it). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden categories

If you and Cryptic-waveform don't want people like me to "overcat", then please unhide Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration because the 466,944 images in it show up in Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention. This would be appreciated by "humans" like me who are wasting our time trying to reduce this enormous backlog. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at your talk page. But we don't reduce a backlog by simply hiding it, from doing something that's generally useless but that just happens to make the tag go away. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Public transport Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

141 and 181

I am trying to add simpler categories for them to match the rest.89.240.14.140 11:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Yet again, like the GCR/LNER locos and the NER/LNER electrics you're causing chaos. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is Britain. And I am sorry about the 201/104 but I am talking about 141 and 181.89.240.14.140 11:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=774266774"