User talk:Robert.Allen

Filnik 00:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Now the images are ok. Bye, --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Robert.Allen!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Brevis and seimibrevis - 13th-14th centuries.jpg was uncategorized on 6 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Brevis and semibrevis - modern notation.jpg was uncategorized on 6 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Brevis and seimibrevis - 15th-16th centuries.jpg was uncategorized on 6 April 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Maude_Fay_as_Elisabeth_-_Fay_Family_website.jpg

File:Maude_Fay_as_Elisabeth_-_Fay_Family_website.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!

Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

category:Maude Fay

Are you serious about the "unknown photographer"? The name of that unknown photographer is written on most of this images. The photographer is not "unknown", its just difficult too read because of the small size of the scan, but bad scanning or information not available online does not make something unknown. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unknown to me is all I meant. Perhaps I should have said "could not be identified" --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a common problem on this project that the description of an 'unknown' author is done only on personal research or subjective impression and not because an external source describes the author objectively unknown. So its not only your mistake. For the other images:

• Gräfin/Figaro image is from someone called Baumann, thats regretably not much information but it is a start to ask someone who may know it before the author is described as unresearchable as required by {{PD-EU-anonymous}}.
• Elisabeth 2 image has the inscription Paul Böhm, Böhm (Böhm, Paul [Joseph?]afaik) was a publisher and a photographer, so maybe he's the photographer, and regretably I dont know his lifedata.
• Margarethe image is also published and/or taken by Böhm according to the inscription.
• Judging by the style of writing at the top possibly Gutrune image is also from Böhm.
• I cant read the Senta image but it is for sure not anonymous but contains the typical inscription "Phot. [F/H] XYZ" with Phot. meaning de:Fotograf (written Photograph before the German orthography reform).

Thats all I know and I play the ball over to you. From my point of view all images are not public domain unless Bauman is identified, the lifedata of Böhm becomes known and (that can apply to all files) a better scan of the postcards was made to check the complete inscription. Maybe also booksearch can help, e.g. Paul Böhms Elisabeth photo is described in Google Books (search term: "Maude Fay" OR "Maud Fay" photographie). --Martin H. (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From my current understanding, I think it would be better to upload all of them to the English Wikipedia site and delete them, and the category (since it will be empty), from Commons. Do you think this would solve the problems? --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading to en.wp will be a sollution. Use en:Template:Do not move to Commons. If known you can use the templates expiry parameter {{Do not move to Commons|expiry=2020}}, the expiry year for e.g. Grainer (died 1948) is 2018 so that the warning will disappear on January 1 2019. --Martin H. (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Théâtre de la Gaîté

Hello and thank you for your message.
I had in fact been wanting to take a photo of the Théâtre de la Gaîté but it was covered in tarpaulins during all or most of 2010. I have only just now found out (from en:Théâtre de la Gaîté !) that it was re-opened in December. Let's hope the façade hasn't been completely re-designed (no FOP in France). In any case I'll certainly go and take a look as soon as the sun starts peeping out again. And, yes, I too am willing to bet that the photos you pointed out are all copyrighted.
As regards the Palais Royal, it happens to be one of the places I like most in Paris, and though I am by no means a connoisseur in matters of architecture or photography, I do intend to return there as soon as the sun... etc.
Please feel free to make any other suggestions or requests. If I don't feel up to the task, I should be able to pass them on to others who are.
Mu (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is what it looked like a bit earlier today: Category:Théâtre de la Gaîté. The light wasn't too great, but as I happened to be in the area I thought I might as well make a start :-) Mu (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

FOP is a pain in the butt (see here for a more technical explanation) but in this case it fortunately didn't apply. I don't know which photo to choose. I was rather hoping you would select one for the English article, so that I could then do the same for the French article, but that may be a bit cheeky of me. The fact is, all of them are rather bland. I was thinking of making a second attempt, maybe in March or April, before the leaves grow back on the trees and when the light is hopefully better. Or perhaps at night, when the shows start up again, reportedly some time in March. In the meanwhile, many thanks for your encouragements and feedback. – Mu (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just what I needed... again, many thanks! Thus emboldened, I have illustrated the French article, also adding a photo of the statue on the left of the façade: "Comedy" by Amédée Doublemard. I have failed so far to ascertain the exact name and dates of the sculptor of the second statue, "Drama", but that may come later. – Mu (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Théâtre de Nicolet

I fully agree with the change you suggest, i.e. redirecting to Category:Théâtre de la Gaîté (boulevard du Temple). Regarding the new article and the new images on WP, congratulations! (One minor point: "M. Sartines" can be linked to en:Antoine de Sartine.) Now that the French version has been made obsolete, I or somebody else will soon be putting your work to good use. All best, Mu (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Source for the 1609 Quesnel map of Paris

The link which you provided as the source of File:Plan de Paris en 1609.jpg appears to be incorrect. Is it possible to correct it? (I realize it has been over a year since you uploaded it, but I thought you might still have the correct link somewhere or know where to find it.) Thanks for help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai modifié la source, bonne journée. --Thesupermat (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Title page of Orfeo ed Euridice

Hello, Robert. Both Commons articles "File:Gluck's Orphée - title page illustration (lightened and cropped).jpg" (which you have edited yourself), and "File:Orfeo ed Euridice.jpg" bear the same description, “From the title page of the 1774 Paris score of Gluck's opera Orphée” , and state 1774 as the date of publication. When I edited the Italian Wikipedia article Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck), I ascertained (I now wonder how and if my statement is right!) that it is in fact the front page of the original 1762 Vienna score that was first published in Paris in 1764. I own a festival performance programme (VII Festival Internazionale di Marlia, 1984) where the whole image is reproduced, and it bears at its foot the wording in Italian, “Euridice amor ti rende (atto II, Sc. II)”, which might seem rather unlikely as the front page of the French version. In any case, the source, Austria-Forum, indicated in your said article states “The picture shows the title-page of the Paris print of 1764”, which seems to corroborate my assertion in the Italian Wikipedia.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to check your sources and possibly help me clarify the question (however minor it may be). Thank you very much in advance. --Jeanambr (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you must be correct. I don't remember now what I was thinking at the time, but I may have erroneously concluded that the date on the web page Austria-Forum was just a typo, thinking that it must be the cover of a score of the French version first performed in 1774, since it was published in Paris. (If so, I should have documented that more carefully.) From your description it sounds like the Italian text was part of the original cover. Are you planning to upload a scan of the version with the Italian text? Do we have information corroborating that the Italian version was published in Paris in 1764? In any case, thanks very much for pointing out this inconsistency. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked Patricia Howard's book, and on p. 6 she documents that the Italian score was indeed published in Paris by Duchesne in 1764. I will edit the errors here and at the English Wikipedia. Thanks again! --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And I will edit them at the other Wikipedias. Thank you very much again. --Jeanambr (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Images of a French singer

Hi, Robert: as I have met you here, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity, in the hope I am not bothering you too much. I have found in the online site cesar.org.uk some nice images of the singer Étienne Lainez in costume (as Dardanus and Rodrigue) which would fit very well for the articles w:en:Dardanus (Sacchini) (and its corresponding Italian one) and w:it:Chimène (which I will shortly try to translate into English, too). I wonder if it is possible and lawful to upload those images ([1] and [2] onto the Commons, but, even if it is, I fear I may not be able to do that myself. If you could take a look at the question, when you have some spare time (and provided you feel like it), I’d be very much obliged to you. Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

These are public domain, so it is no problem to upload them. In my opinion the pics could be modified to improve their look, but some people prefer to leave them untouched. In any case the untouched images can be uploaded, and a retouched one can either be loaded up to the same page, or under a different file name. If you have never uploaded, you might wish to try in order to learn, or if you prefer, I can do it for you. I usually use this form for uploading. Start with the "Choose file" button and work your way through the form. The url goes in "Source"; for date I would probably use the year of first performance (since these were typically created at the time of the premier). For the "Licensing" drop-down you should probably select "Author died more than 100 years ago". (If I have not covered something, feel free to ask more questions.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tried, somehow! Thank you again. --Jeanambr (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see it worked for you, and you documented it nicely. Congratulations! --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

About your request for suppression of the image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disque_perso-Kalioujny_par_Gestalder.jpg

Hello, I'm the autor of this photography that represent a sculpture realised by my father Jacques Gestalder. In Wikimedia Commons this picture is categorised as in the public domain. So could you tell me, where is the problem ? David-commons (talk)

Thanks very much for your response. It's a great picture to have here, so I hope you will follow up on this, so that the picture will not get nominated again for deletion. I may be mistaken, but I believe you need to go through a procedure to prove that you are indeed the copyright holder in the original work and give permission for the photo (a derivative work) of it to be licensed for free distribution. Please check here: Commons:OTRS. Also this discussion should probably be copied to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disque perso-Kalioujny par Gestalder.jpg, which will help delay any action until the question is resolved. (If I am wrong in making this nomination, the OTRS people will likely tell you that. I'm not experienced enough to know for sure. In any case, the nomination was made in good faith, according to my understanding of the copyright issues involved.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks a lot for your explainations. I'm writting by email to OTRS members for regularisation of the situation. David-commons (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded François Chereau

Thank you for the inspiration in our discussions about Jacques Cheréau. I have expanded François Chereau and have material to make an atelier page as you suggested for the rest of the family. The British Museum has a portrait of the grandson who reunited the family collection of prints, Jacques-François Chéreau, but I do not know if it is acceptable to import to Wiki Commons. If it were, it would make a lovely image for atelier page. Please make any changes in the page, citations, French accents whatever you might find that needs correction. My English suffers as I am beginning to speak French after all these nights poking around in the ancien regieme! Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the acute accents may be on the wrong "e". Shouldn't it be "Chéreau"?. The image should be fine to upload. Anything where the author died more than 70 years ago and published before 1923 can be uploaded to Commons. And the museum website even says for educational non-commercial purposes there is not problem to use it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: PD-100 template

Robert, the PD-100 is not applicable for US-side because it is not the reason the image is PD in the US. The image is PD in the US because it was published before 1923, not because the author has died more than so many years ago. US-side laws are determined by publication status first; only if the image is published after 1978 in certain circumstances, after 2002 in all circumstances, or never published at all do we consider post mortem auctoris and apply such tags for the US side.

Note that the other tag is for the image's country of origin (as stated in bold in the PD-Art-two/PD-Art wrappers). That country in this case would be Italy, which has 70-year pma. If this was a Mexican piece of art whose creator died more than 100 years ago, then PD-100 would have been used. Jappalang (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I reiterate: the PD-Art wrapper asks for the conditions why the image is public domain in its country of origin. Under the Berne convention, the country of origin is where the work is first published. File:Final scene of Act1 of 'The Pearl Fishers' by Bizet - Gallica.jpg is first published in Italy, not Mexico, not the US, not anywhere else. Its country of origin is unequivocally Italy. We do not use a 100-year pma template because it is not accurate; Italy does not have 100-year pma, it has 70-year pma.

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.  Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse

was designed for post mortem auctoris conditions; read the template page.  That some people, on their own initiative and inaccurate interpretations, altered the original intent of the child templates into inaccurate ones is no excuse to continue propagating such errors.  Unless the work concerned is in the US because of pma (unpublished, post-2002 publication, or publication during 1982–2002 under certain conditions), a separate tag for US copyright status is needed.  Whether the image is PD in countries other than the country of origin (and the US) is for the re-user to determine.  Jappalang (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)