User talk:Multichill/Archives/2022/March

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


Flag nominations

[1] & [2]. Multichill (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Coexhotel03.jpg

File:Coexhotel03.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

✗plicit 14:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

PDM

When we use Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal (Q7257361) in copyright license (P275), like this, it creates a constraint violation, because the property (rightfully) thinks public domain works should not have copyright licenses. And yet, I've found no where better to add PDM, if the data source is using it and we would like to reflect that. Do you have any better ideas about how we should do this? (I'm not the only one, there's over 2000 files using it in that property, including WMSE uploads). If there is not a better way, should we just allow it in the property constraints? Dominic (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic: that usage is incorrect. The public domain mark is not a license so should never be used in copyright license (P275). Please remove. Multichill (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I would like to remove it! I was trying to figure out the ideal way to do this, so I know what to replace it with. Just having x copyright status (P6216) public domain (Q19652) seems insufficient, if a source has applied PDM themselves, and we should represent that somewhere as well. Dominic (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dominic: we have many reasons why something is public domain, see Category:PD license tags.
In structured data the basic statement some file copyright status (P6216) public domain (Q19652) should have one or more determination method or standard (P459) qualifiers. That should contain the real reason why we think it's public domein (for example due to age or US government work). I'm a bit reluctant to put the PDM reason in there because that would be {{Public domain}} all over again.
What about using statement supported by (P3680)? Something like "GLAM source added the PDM"? Multichill (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that PDM is not the reason, as you say, just the mark. And I'm already using a different determination method anyway. Using something else as a qualifier to the P275 statement would be fine with me.
I like P3680, but it appears from the scope that the values of that property are intended to be the entity making the statement (i.e., the institution), rather than the reason for it. Maybe criterion used (P1013) is more like what you are suggesting?
Here's another idea: using identity of object in context (P4626), and then maybe we can simply use Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal (Q7257361) in the value, instead of creating a new "GLAM source added the PDM" item. What would you think of that? The reference provided is still the source for the context. Dominic (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Tomruen test.svg

File:Tomruen test.svg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Ixfd64 (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Participation in a virtual session for Wikimedians and Researchers?

Hey Multichill, we are organizing this session to bring together Wikimedians and researchers who work in a multilingual and multi-modal (e.g., text and images) setting, and I was wondering whether you could participate in the session? It's less than an hour on April 29, 2022. More information is here: [3], the workshop is described here: meta:Wiki-M3L. If you are interested, could you send me a mail to lucie.kaffee[@]gmail.com? Would love to have you there! --Frimelle (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Multichill/Archives/2022/March&oldid=685248073"