User talk:NeilAmagna

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, NeilAmagna!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:I0002493.tif

Copyright status: File:I0002493.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I0002493.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:I0002502.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 08:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:I0002518.tif

Copyright status: File:I0002518.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I0002518.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:I0002529.tif
• File:I0002501.tif
• File:I0002510.tif
• File:I0002519.tif
• File:I0002530.tif
• File:I0002492.tif
• File:I0002503.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 09:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:I0002504.tif

Copyright status: File:I0002504.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I0002504.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:I0002513.tif
• File:I0002526.tif
• File:I0002505.tif
• File:I0002514.tif
• File:I0002527.tif
• File:I0002494.tif
• File:I0002506.tif
• File:I0002515.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 10:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:I0002509.tif

Copyright status: File:I0002509.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I0002509.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:I0002528.tif
• File:I0002495.tif
• File:I0002511.tif
• File:I0002531.tif
• File:I0002496.tif
• File:I0002512.tif
• File:I0002532.tif
• File:I0002497.tif
• File:I0002516.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 11:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:I0002522.tif

Copyright status: File:I0002522.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I0002522.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:I0002499.tif
• File:I0002533.tif
• File:I0002500.tif
• File:I0002534.tif
• File:I0002507.tif
• File:I0002537.tif
• File:I0002508.tif
• File:I0002517.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:I0002520.tif

Copyright status: File:I0002520.tif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:I0002520.tif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:I0002521.tif

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 13:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Officer's Carriole prettier & perpetually oversetting Canadian Carriole safe & pleasant (I0006870).tif

File:Officer's Carriole prettier & perpetually oversetting Canadian Carriole safe & pleasant (I0006870).tif 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!

R.sauce (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Archives of Ontario images

Today you uploaded several images from the M.O. Hammond fonds at the Archives of Ontario but your source links just lead to the same wikidate page where the same source link there does not lead to any of the actual images. Please add the correct source to each file page so they link directly to the page where the images are actually displayed at the Archives of Ontario website. That way reviewers can actually verify the copyright status of each individual image which is currently no possible. If not, it is likely they will be nominated for deletion as not having a valid source and that would be a pity. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@NeilAmagna: Hi, I came to your talk page to tell basically the same thing, but I see that Ww2censor already explained it above. Apparently his message was ignored. Wikidata is obviously not the source of those images. Please review the uploads and indicate real sources. Files should not remain indefinitely without the indication of their sources. The images look interesting and it would be unfortunate to see them get deleted because they're missing a correct indication of source. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Asclepias: personally I think all of this editor's images should be put up for deletion. I cannot find even one image that is properly sourced though I have only looked at a selection, of the well over 1,000 files. My reasoning is that we cannot verify their copyright status and the uploader does not seem bothered to provide a proper source as required and asked as long ago as November last year. If he would engage we could help him do things properly but that does not seem like it is going to happen. NeilAmagna, please prove us wrong. Ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias: @Ww2censor I work with @NeilAmagna at the Archives of Ontario and have been preparing much of the metadata for these uploads. These uploads have become part of our contribution at the Archives of Ontario to the GLAM Wiki project. Although we are not able to link directly to the images on our website, it has been our approach, consistent with other GLAM Wiki involved institutions, to include the particular image number (I0028...) that a user can follow back to our holdings. If you look at the images posted by Library and Archives Canada, for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montreal_Canadiens_hockey_team,_October_1942.jpg, there is no link to the image on their website. They do, however, use a license code that indicates that the images is available at LAC using the source code |Source=

This image is available from Library and Archives Canada under the reproduction reference number PA-108357 This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing. Library and Archives Canada does not allow free use of its copyrighted works. See Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada.

. We determined after consulting with other archivists that using the Wikidata element would be the best way to ensure the continuity of the connection between the images and the collection from where they came. When you link to the Wikidata element for particular collection, there is a link under "described at URL" that will take the user to the description of the material that includes copyright information. As we have already received positive feedback on our GLAM Wiki contributions and are seeing the material used, we would hate to see this work taken down. If you have any specific advice to share with us, we would appreciate so that we don't run int this issue again as we hope to continue uploading to the Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethmains (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias @Ww2censor: Thanks for your messages. I'm echoing what @Sethmains said above. With the way our databases at Archives of Ontario are structured, we are not able to link directly to images on our website; however, each image has been identified by a unique identifier that would allow users to trace the image back to our holdings. Further, if you follow File Page, Source link, Described at URL link, you will see that in the Archives of Ontario, C 2 Bartle Bros Fonds page, under Terms For Use and Reproduction, it states that the “records are in the public domain”. Thank you!

Sethmains and NeilAmagna:

Hello and thank you for your replies. And thank you for uploading the files. Yes, the files are certainly valuable. Hopefully the sourcing can be made easier. I comment first the LAC image you mentioned, and then the sourcing of the AO files.

• Description pages of files from Library and Archives Canada can, and should, provide the link to the LAC source. LAC has a page for each record (it also displays the image when it is available online), which can be accessed directly with a link. On Commons, contributors unfamiliar with the LAC source template can simply provide an unformatted url to the LAC source page (e.g. [1]). Contributors familiar with the usage of the LAC source template can include the link into that template, using the LAC item ID number as parameter 2. Not the copy negative number, the other one, formerly called the mikan number. The instructions for the use of the source template are also mentioned at the top of the Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada.
• It can be noted that the file File:Montreal Canadiens hockey team, October 1942.jpg was not uploaded "by" LAC nor as part of a GLAM project. Commons has about 4000 files categorized into the Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada and its subcategories (and probably many more that are not categorized there). Only a few hundred of those were uploaded as part of a GLAM project. Most files from LAC are typically uploaded by users unrelated to LAC, often by relatively inexperienced users. That is fine and perfectly normal on a public wiki, but a proportion of the files will have description pages not completely well formatted. Other users can ameliorate them when they see them and when possible. Obviously, in such cases where a user found and copied the online file from the LAC website, he can provide the link to the specific LAC webpage. (The situation may be different when exceptionally a GLAM project uploads to Commons an image for which the record is not available to the public online.)
• The user who uploaded that file in 2005 is not at fault. He did include a source link to the LAC record. Nobody wanted to make it difficult to find the source. Apparently, that particular link became non functional at some time, probably due to changes in the structure of the LAC website. Another user, who later reformatted the Commons description page and removed the broken link, did not do extra research to update it with a new link (maybe he did not know where to look for it or did not want to spend time to research it). Therefore, the particular page File:Montreal Canadiens hockey team, October 1942.jpg, in the particular state in which you found it yesterday, cannot be taken as an example of what to do, it was more an example of what not to do or, to be fair, more exactly it was an example of a very early upload (in 2005, during the first year of existence of Wikimedia Commons), which exceptionally required special maintenance to be updated, something that is not always easy. It was not entirely bad, because, as you noted, at least one reference number still remained. But having only a reference number to start from, switches the burden of research to the reader, for whom it may be difficult to figure out how to get to the end target.
• I fixed the description page of File:Montreal Canadiens hockey team, October 1942.jpg after reading your message. It now provides a link to the LAC source page, under the ID number. (And now you know how to do it too if you find other LAC files that could benefit from an update.) ;)
• Now, about the Archives of Ontario files.
• First, what is the "source" field? Normally, it is for a statement of how and where the uploader obtained the file. For an original photo uploaded to Commons by the photographer, it's "own work". For an image available online, it's typically the url to the webpage with the context (not merely the url of the .jpg file). However, if some AO images uploaded to Commons are not available to the public on the AO website, the "source" field for those images could be a short statement that this file was provided by AO as part of the GLAM project, etc., and ideally be accompanied by a link to the specific AO record. (If a user wants more information about the fonds in general, normally it should be possible for him to go easily from the specific record to the fonds, although the other way around is not always easy.)
• Keeping in mind that the average reader who is looking for the source information about an image does not have an innate expert knowledge of the cryptic Wikidata website and of the details of the internal workings of the Archive of Ontario website, let's try to list the multiple steps he must follow under the current scheme (assuming he finds the patience, time, skill and motivation and somehow surprisingly manages to get to the end of it). For example, suppose the user is looking for information about File:A.J. Casson (I0014638).jpg (of which there are also at least two other versions, the full File:Alfred Joseph Casson, A.R.C.A (I0023643).jpg and the cropped version File:Alfred Joseph Casson (I0007936).jpg).
• Click on the link in the "source" field. Okay, that step is easy, although misleading because Wikidata is not the source. Try to figure out what one is supposed to do with a Wikidata page. Pretty sure half the users are already lost by then. Anyway. Spot a link to "Images from Archives of Ontario - F 1075 M. O. Hammond fonds". Click. No, that leads to the Commons category. Back to Wikidata. Spot a friendly-looking link to "official website www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/index.aspx". Looks promising? Click. Leads to the AO main page. Hm, what now? Oh, wasn't there some mysterious ID number in the Commons description page? Back to the starting point, on Commons, to check the description page. Copy mysterious ID number. Back to AO main page. Feed mysterious ID number into main AO seach box. Click. "No items matched your search criteria." Back to Wikidata. Spot a weird-looking link "described at url ao.minisisinc.com/...". Click. Okay, general description of a fonds. Person died in 1934. Fonds contains public domain stuff. But how to find information about the image and know if it is from that author and from that fonds? Try to guess in what subsection of the fonds to look? Hundreds of records. Too many. Click the search button at the top of the page. Get to a different search page. Feed ID number into that search box. "Your search returned 24 results." Examine 24 results. None of them turn out to be relevant to the image. Interestingly, experimenting with different numbers into that search box return the same 24 irrelevant results. Erase ID number. Feed some significant keyword instead. Say, in this case, "Casson". "Your search returned 5 results." Examine 5 results. None of which turn out to be relevant to the image. Back to the fonds description page. Let's try a guess for the subsection "portraits of Canadian artists". Click. Get to subsection page. Click "show online list". 271 files. Luckily they're in alphabetical order in this subsection (not always the case in other subsections). Find one for Casson. Click. Aha! Finally. AO have a record page for that photo after all. (Altough this is probably the record for the cropped version. I suppose there are record pages for the other two versions.) There's even an option to save the link of the record page, so it must be possible to use it. There's also a page displaying a cropped version of the photo. Strangely, record pages have a bunch of reference numbers (e.g. "F 1075-12-0-0-169, Print: F 1075-12, barcode B230337, Negative: F 1075-12, barcode B230288 ... Take note of this information for retrieval of this item."), but none of them look anything like the ID numbers provided on the Commons pages (e.g. "I0014638").
• Observations:
• We probably lost 99% of the potential users at some point along the way before the end of this quest.
• The detour through Wikidata is useless. If the idea is to provide the link to the description of the fonds, why not place that link in the Commons page and save the reader the time and trouble of finding his way through a detour on an intermediate website?
• You might tell me that I didn't find the way to use the ID number on the AO wesite. And that would be correct. But that's part of the problem. You can't assume that every citizen knows exactly how your website is supposed to work. I'm sure you guys have become super-experts at navigating your own website. I'm sure also you could give me a great course on how to use it. But that's the point. You shouldn't have to explain individually to every occasional user how he can finally find what he's looking for. Surely it is possible to provide a direct link (or as direct as possible) from the Commons page to the specific AO record page and/or image page. Please try to make the process user-friendly from the start.
• If you think a source template made specifically for AO could be useful, you could make one or someone familiar with templates could make one.

-- Asclepias (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias @NeilAmagna Clearly, you have stumbled upon one of the main reasons why we decided to start uploading to the Commons as part of our GLAM Wiki project. It's not always simple to find images on our website even for experienced users such as yourself. We wanted to put our material where users are and make it easy for them to find, download and use our material. Benoit Rochon was also pretty persuasive in offering statistical support for why the AO should start utilizing the Wikimedia platforms for sharing knowledge. We understand that providing a direct link to the fonds level description on our website is preferable, but we decided to use the Wikidata route as it would be easier to manage any change to our static links. Without getting into many details, but our database will be changing in about a year. Regardless, I see what you are saying. That said, how would this work as an interim measure in the source field: "Images from the [e.g.] William Hampden Tener fonds were uploaded to the Commons as part of the Archives of Ontario’s GLAM Wiki project." We could then hyper link to the fonds level description on our website and to our GLAM Wiki page. If so, then we would be happy to start making the necessary edits.

@Asclepias @NeilAmagna Understanding your knowledge of archives and the Wikimedia Commons, I wonder if you would be able to meet with us to go over some of these challenges? We are interested in uploading photographs from our holdings of government records which are covered by Crown Copyright, so would be itnerested to know under what license to upload them. Thanks--Sethmains (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sethmains: Given the situation, yes I think your suggestion for the source field is good (Images from <fonds> etc., linking to the fonds description and the project page). IMO, it is certainly better than the current situation.

(You probably know this already, but just in case, simple but repetitive tasks on a large number of pages can be done either with the gadget VisualFileChange or by a bot. I suppose it might be useful if you need to make modifications next year or maybe even now.)

About uploading photographs still under crown copyright, the choice of license would be a decision for the person who has the power to manage that intellectual property for the government. A good choice can be one of the best-known and widely used licenses, such as for example CC-by-3.0 or CC-by-4.0 or CC-by-sa-3.0 or CC-by-sa-4.0. Unless they prefer to use the OGLO. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias @Sethmains Thank you so much for your very detailed reply. In many cases, the images we upload in the Wiki space are not also available within our own publicly accessible databases. However, we do very much see your point. To help Wiki users find sufficient information, we can certainly add a statement in the source field of each image that explains that the images are uploaded as part of AO's GLAM Wiki project. If more information is required, we could also add the link to our fonds level description in the AO website pertaining to the collection that the images belong to. Although, as @Sethmains touched upon in his reply, we are going to be changing databases within the next 12 months, and such permalinks we include to the Wiki images now will likely break by this time next year. Because of this, we were trying to avoid this issue by adding the link to our fonds in the Wikidata page instead - which we understand is very confusing to the users. In your opinion, is there a way for us to enhance our Wikidata collection pages enough that it would be adequate, helpful for the users, and compliant with Wiki standards? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilAmagna (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 May 2021‎ (UTC)

@Asclepias @NeilAmagna Once again, thanks for you response and your guidance. We have a few things to unpack, but will start to implementing the changes to the source field in the 2009 images that we have uploaded to date. We have about 300 more images from the William Hampden Tener fords ready to go, so we will use that as our first go with the new wording in the source field. I am particularly grateful for the advice on the license options for material under Crown Copyright. I will look into it a bit more and determine whether we need any external opinions. Fortunately, we administer Crown Copyright internally for all archival material so it won't too much of a challenge. --Sethmains (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias @NeilAmagna I thought we should let you know that we have amended the content of all of the source fields as per our discussion. Going forward, we will follow this approach. Given your interest in our work, feel free to reach out any time. All the best. --Sethmains (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asclepias @Sethmains Thank you so much for your help and guidance. This is new to us and we are ever-learning. We really appreciate your input in making sure that we're doing this correctly the first go around. Cheers.

File:Women producing munitions in GECO Munitons factory, Scarborough (I0028233).tif

File:Women producing munitions in GECO Munitons factory, Scarborough (I0028233).tif 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!

E4024 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)