Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blieb

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Blieb (talk · contribs)

Previously the files were tagged with "no source" but they are PD-old and the uploader needs time to gather the information.

Gallery of images

File:1M Melnik.jpg File:CLB 2 Krakow.jpg File:Kfjb 62.jpg File:KFNB Olomucia II.jpg File:KFNB Borsig.jpg File:KFNB Horaz.jpg File:KFNB Mazeppa.jpg File:KFNB Concordia reko.jpg File:KFNB Concordia.jpg File:KFNB Euterpe.jpg File:KFNB Troppau.jpg File:KFNB Sylphide I.jpg File:KFNB Minos I.jpg File:KFNB Silesia.jpg File:KFNB Iris.jpg File:KFNB Juno.jpg File:KFNB Ulysses.jpg File:KFNB Ganymed.jpg File:KFNB Aetna.jpg File:KFNB Donau.jpg File:KFNB Koloss.jpg File:KFNB Phoenix.jpg File:KFNB Baltimore.png File:KFNB Nordstern.jpg File:KFNB Austria.jpg File:KFNB X 46.jpg File:KFNB VI 386.jpg File:KFNB VI 387.jpg File:KFNB Ve 524.jpg File:KFNB Vd 284.jpg File:KFNB Vd 414.jpg File:KFNB Vc2 317.jpg File:KFNB Vc2 292.jpg File:KFNB IIIb1 TITAN.jpg File:KFNB IIc Gnadendorf.jpg File:KFNB VIII 553.jpg File:KkStB 11 02.jpg File:KkStB 88 52.jpg File:KkStB Tender 88 01.jpg File:KkStB Tender 86.jpg File:KkStB 3.001.jpg File:KkStB 197.26.jpg File:KkStB 191.01.jpg File:KkStB 85 05.jpg File:KkStB 85 00.jpg File:KkStB 85.01.jpg File:KkStB 91.01.jpg File:KkStB 23 02.jpg File:KkStB 85 09.jpg File:KkStB 207.jpg File:KRB 310.jpg File:OeLEG B 112.jpg File:ONWB IVb 107.jpg File:ONWB IVa 110.jpg File:ONWB IIIb 50 Stuart Mill.jpg File:ONWB IIb Koeniginhof.jpg File:ONWB Id 100.jpg File:ONWB Livingstone.jpg File:NOeSWB 4C.jpg File:NOeSWB 1A 4A.jpg File:Rittinger nach Umbau.jpg File:Rittinger Weltausstellung.jpg File:SB 17b 320.JPG File:SB Bavaria.png File:SB Seraing.png File:SB Neustadt.png File:SB Vindobona nach Umbau.png File:SB Vindobona vor Umbau.png File:StEG 36 10.jpg File:OeLEG 509L.jpg File:Gablonz.jpg File:KkStB 93 01.jpg File:KFNB IId 226.jpg File:Ktb iii.jpg File:KTB Windischgarsten.jpg File:KFNB Fulton II.jpg File:KFNB Minos.jpg File:KFNB GLAUCOS II.jpg File:KFNB Auspitz.jpg File:KkStB 1.301.jpg File:KkStB 564.02.jpg File:KFNB Komet II 1B.jpg File:KFNB Rakete II 1A1.jpg File:OeLEG C 201.jpg File:KkStB 162.jpg

RE rillke questions? 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The uploader last contributed at Commons over four years ago, but was still active on the German Wikipedia in 2011 June. Accordingly, I have posted a request at w:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Blieb#Quelle Steam locomotives of Austria. -84user (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am drawing a blank looking for some of these image in googleimages. I am also looking through the uploader's archived talk history. There is no search box there but this example search code is useful. Search for such terms as "Quelle" and "Lizenz". -84user (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I randomly picked File:KFNB Nordstern.jpg, this steam engine was wrecked in 1865, that's 146 years ago. There's a small possibility that the photographer was still alive in 1941 ... a×p_de^Hello! 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This one is a works photograph, the engine was built in 1839 - there is no possibility that the photographer was still alive in 1941. I removed the deletion request.

Small correction: Considering the history of photography I'm not 100% convinced that its a works photograph by the builder, it may even show the rebuilt condition after 1843. (But that doesn't change my opinion about the photographer.) -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

To all: Most of these images seem to be scanned from books, some of them out of print for years. The ones I own by myself usually mention some private collectors as image sources. One question btw: Isn't there some rule of thumb anymore that 140 years is OK to assume PD? And with images that are clearly PD a source may be great by encyclopedic meanings, but I doubt that its neccessary by meanings of copyright. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I am afraid the date when the locomotive was built is not helping much. Some of these locomotives could have been photographed in a museum. Are they real locomotives or models ? When was each photograph taken ? Who was the photographer ? When did the photographer die ? When was the photograph first published ? File:KFNB Austria.jpg is probably the model mentioned on de:KFNB – Austria und Moravia as Ein Modell der AUSTRIA befindet sich im Technischen Museum Wien. Probably the picture is a scan from one of the two mentioned books: Alfred Horn: Die Kaiser-Ferdinands-Nordbahn, Die Bahnen Österreich-Ungarns, Band 2, Bohmann Verlag, 1970 and Karl Gölsdorf: Lokomotivbau in Alt-Österreich 1837–1918, Verlag Slezak, 1978, ISBN 3-900134-40-5. I think the best would be that an Austrian Wikipedian goes to the Technischen Museum Wien and takes a brand new photograph of the model. Teofilo (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Austria" is clearly a picture of the model (and afaik a photography of the original engine doesn't exist). -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep all

These images do not need either a source, date or author.

Our requirement is to adequately demonstrate licensing, and to comply with the terms of this licensing. In the sense of IETF RFC2119 (if you're not a geek, then look it up - it's a useful distinction) then there are things that we MUST do and things that we SHOULD do. We must demonstrate licensing. We must comply with this licensing. We should also capture additional metadata, such as sourcing. If we have achieved our musts though, that is sufficient. There is no reason to delete a file over a "should" that we have not achieved. This is particularly the case for an early upload such as these, where in 2006 we were often very lax about such things.

There are cases where we cannot achieve our "musts" without also doing some of those that are otherwise just a "should". In particular, dates where these are around the cutoff date for a PD claim. Also a CC-by licence would obviously need an author recorded (usually just a "should") so that the "by" constraint may be met. Neither of these cases apply to all images. It is wrong to attempt to apply all aspects that might apply in a particular case to all images as a blanket.

In this case, an uploader in good standing has uploaded what appear to be scans from an old book, under a claim of PD-old. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt this claim. AGF requires me to trust such an uploader, unless there are reasons to the contrary, of which there are none.

There is no reason to suspect the PD-old claim. It shows no reason to believe the source is newer than would be relevant, or even that it's close to the cutoff date.

There is no reason (under a PD tag) to require "by" attribution. Accordingly we do not require to do so here, and thus we do not require the author to be noted - this requirement remains a "should" not a "must".

I would of course encourage the additional properties to be recorded. I would encourage Blieb to add them, and for any German wiki editors who might have contact with him to please do so and try to encourage him to add them. "Should" is still a good thing.

Despite this, despite the absence of the properties, despite lack of a legalistic proof that this is an old book and not a new one faked up to look old, or some other fanciful explanation as to why yet another category can be turned into an opportunity for gratuitous adminess, there is still no good reason here to delete these images. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

with PD-old licenses we do not care that much about the age of the book images come from, there is also no "cutoff date" for the source. All we care about is when each photographer died. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. However I still trust the uploader's original assessment that these images fall under PD-old, even if I can't see their notes from the time of upload. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I think those images would be OK if we use {{Anonymous-EU}} license: I think it more likely that those images were taken in 1800s than in 1900s so images are most likely more than 70 years old. If we have some reason to believe that photographers were from Europe than {{Anonymous-EU}} should be fine. --Jarekt (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment and  Delete as said above: I am afraid the date when the locomotive was built is not helping much. Some of these locomotives could have been photographed in a museum. Are they real locomotives or models ? When was each photograph taken ? Who was the photographer ? When did the photographer die ? - and I really dislike assumptions based on nothing. Therefore I agree - once sources are verified, added and PD-old status confirmed, pictures may remain. Otherwise they should be deleted because there is to much doubts and unknown issues about them. It's not the way how Commons works. Masur (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC) ps. and I restored the template in File:KFNB Nordstern.jpg - there is even no sign that it's an original engine not a model or something. How can we claim anything without sources? Just by looking at a picture?

They're assumptions based on AGF. I trust Blieb to have correctly assessed their PD status at the time of uploading. I have no reason to suspect either this particular case, or Blieb's general competence to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not trust that Blieb correctly assessed PD status if images, since I do not trust that he researched each photograph's author and his year of death and than upload images without any information about it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Masur, I am trying to be pragmatic here, and since there is NO metadata with those files the only source of information is by "just by looking at a picture". I often decide by "just by looking at a picture" what to recommend for deletion, for example we do have a lot of images that look like old paintings or engravings but without any author or source info - I usually leave them alone, while "modern looking" painting get DR. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/www.santiebeati.it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete I think we should give interested parties a few month to do the research (and I request that this deletion request remain open at least this long). However it is perfectly reasonably to suppose that these were taken of models or in a museum in 1923 or later, and without source information there is no way of knowing. In fact, it's possible some of these trains were still around in the 1920s and 30s, if only in junkyards. To give an analogy, I recently encountered a painting that was uploaded to En, and the uploader said it was fine because it was a "vintage painting". Turned out the painter was born in 1940. You can't just guess about this kind of thing. If the date of first publication can be identified, and is pre-1923, but the author cannot be identified, we can still tag them {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} to transfer them to En. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the images are scans from books. They can be dated approximately if one knows when the locomotives got a new owner, because the new owner gave them new and different numbers. For example, all KFNB locomotives came to kkStB in 1906. Thus all images showing KFNB numbers must have been taken before 1906. Since the photographer is not known, I used this method to date the images. All of them are at least 100 years old. Anyway you are free to delete them. --Blieb (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Blieb, thanks for your help! Based on this information I've added "before 1906" to all the KFNB images and marked them {{PD-EU-Anonymous}}{{PD-1923}}. Do you have any date information about the remaining images? Thanks again. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it possible, to generate a list of the remaining images? --Blieb (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • List follows (collapsed). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Blieb, you indentified those files as scans from books, could you please add the source of your scans, so we can check that those files are as old as you claimed? a×p_de^Hello! 11:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have primarily used:

• Karl Gölsdorf, Lokomotivbau in Alt-Österreich 1837-1918, Verlag Slezak Wien 1978
• Johann Stockklausner, Dampfbetrieb in Alt-Österreich 1837-1918, Verlag Slezak Wien 1979

--Blieb (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A few clarifications:

• File:1M Melnik.jpg shows ÖNWB-markings. kkStB operated the locomotive from 1907 on, so the image has been taken before 1907.
• File:CLB 2 Krakow.jpg is a works photograph of 1870. Esslingen always used the tapestry arranged behind the locos on works photographs.
• File:Kfjb 62.jpg shows KFJB markings. KFJB came to kkStB in 1884, so the image has been taken before 1884.
• File:KkStB 11 02.jpg, File:KkStB 88 52.jpg, File:KkStB 85 00.jpg, File:KkStB 85.01.jpg show the old kkStB markings from before 1905. The images have been taken before that.
• File:KkStB 197.26.jpg shows KFNB markings. The image has been taken before 1906.
• File:KkStB 85 05.jpg shows BCB markings. BCB came to kkStB in 1906, the image has been taken before.

More to follow. --Blieb (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:ONWB IVb 107.jpg, File:ONWB IVa 110.jpg, File:ONWB IIIb 50 Stuart Mill.jpg, File:ONWB IIb Koeniginhof.jpg, File:ONWB Id 100.jpg, File:ONWB Livingstone.jpg, File:Rittinger nach Umbau.jpg, File:Rittinger Weltausstellung.jpg show ÖNWB markings. ÖNWB came to kkStB in 1909, so the images are older than that. --Blieb (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• File:NOeSWB 4C.jpg and File:NOeSWB 1A 4A.jpg show markings of the NÖSWB or early kkStB. They got new kkStB markings in 1886. The images have been taken before that. --Blieb (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Blieb, thanks for this information, I've updated the corresponding file pages. In addition, it'd be great if for each image you could identify the book it came from, and add this to the file description page. It'd be even better if you could get the figure number, page number, or chapter/section number. I realise this is a lot of work, but it will help others to find the original source later if they need it and to double check your work. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the idea, but one does not obtain additional information concerning the age of the images if you check the books. I think the only way to approximately date the images is how I (and several other people) did it. --Blieb (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you do get more information. You get a definite publication date. It may not be the first publication, but it becomes the latest possible date, and if there are no photographers listed in the book, then it becomes a more clear case of {{Anonymous-EU}} (not to mention helping to determine U.S. copyright status, which is based on publication). *All* source information helps, even if not directly related to the author, and if there is no source/author info present, then documenting that fact helps too. Knowing the book aids researchers of all types, even for example ones looking for related information only. It's also possible that photos were cropped or otherwise altered for the book itself, so it's always good to specify the exact source if possible. Even if not the author, many people and institutions do spend time and effort to publish things, or bring together a collection of photos, etc., and it's always good practice to give them credit anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so far, could you check the list above which questionable files are left? a×p_de^Hello! 14:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• We cannot assume, and predict that author was dead in 1941. We have to know the original source. I think that Precautionary principle is justifiable and Evidence should be provided. Without full source files should be  Delete. JDavid (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep. In the light of the above, the risk of these images from around 1860-1900 still being subject to copyright is so small as to be negligible. Sandstein (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep I think, for most. If a photo is old enough, yes we can assume they died before 1941. The precautionary principle is for when there is no date information at all; not really appropriate here. We need a good defensible reason to keep them based on some evidence (and sometimes details in the photo itself which indicate a particular age are good enough -- these are photographs not paintings). In these cases, PD-old is likely enough I think we can use it. Besides which, if there were no authors listed in the publication, it makes Anonymous-EU a virtual certainty (a good reason to look at the original publication to see if there is author info). The drawings though are harder; those could just as easily be modern so please tell which book they came from, and if any author info was present. I don't think we can assume a license for those without at least knowing when and where they were published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep We don't need no elimination of over 100 years old pictures. This damaged the benefit of Wikimedia Commons. There is a irrecoverable disadvantage for the Wikimedia projects worldwide. Liesel (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep per Sandstein, Liesel. --Steindy (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Kept - Jcb (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)