Review
(criteria) |
 OpposeIdem regarding the copyright. This should be fixed; currently we have no information whatsoever on the copyright status of the photograph. If the geographic location of the letter is known (museum?), then I think it should be geocoded and stated in the description. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on faithful photographic reproductions of public domain works is that they too "are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". And this is pretty much a faithful photographic reproduction.
Also, about the geocoding. I believe it is irrelevant because the subject of the photograph is a piece of paper, and the coordinates would do nothing to help the user understand the subject of the picture. Also, there are other similar VIs, that have no geocoding, nor do they mention the author of the photograph. A few examples are Image:Psalms Scroll.jpg, Image:Vindication1b.jpg, Image:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg. Futhermore, the VI criteria states that "studio and other non-place-related shots" don't need geocoding. diego_pmc (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about the PD thing, but the tag used was not the right one. Fixed that. However, I still think that the photographer should be identified. Actually, I am pretty sure that the right of paternity cannot be renounced in some countries (such as mine), which means that even a PD photograph must be attributed. And I think it is just fair and logical, but maybe it is not a VI criterion. About geocoding: if the picture has been taken in the "usual" museum of the letter, why not state it in the description?? That kind of geographic information is relevant for a historical document. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Eusebius: geocoding of usual place of document is useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wasn't geocoding necessary for Image:Psalms Scroll.jpg then? diego_pmc (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have asked for it as well. But I don't see where the problem is. If you know that the photograph was taken at the museum, just state it in the image page and put an approximate geotag. If you don't, or if it was taken elsewhere, then it is not so relevant and you can just say in which museum the letter can be found. Regarding the "author" field, if you know who the photographer is, just name her in the description. And if you don't... well, licensing is not a VI criterion. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked someone from that town to mark the location of the museum for me on Google Maps. About the author, unfortunatelly I can't find any info on that on the source website. diego_pmc (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The address is "Str. Justitiei, nr. 7, Targoviste" but I cannot find a map of the town. The mention of the museum is enough to me, I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got it. I still have doubts about how useful this really is, or if it is necessary, since the others passed without it, but what the heck. Here it is. diego_pmc (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment A question has been raised about the earlier document type candidates without geodata, which have been promoted. I think I have supported several of those without requiring geodata. IMO not having the geodata on those VIs is OK. The reason being that I consider them as studio shots. The underlying reason for this view is that IMO there is no single location which is the obvious choice. Should it be where the document was prepared (if known, and the preparation may have been done at several different locations), the location where it was found, or the location, where it can be found at the moment? For these types of images I am more in favor of an accurate image page linking to relevant Wimedia project content pages concerning these different types of locations. The individual geodata for those locations should then ideally (and, in fact, they often are) be associated to the Wikimedia content pages referred to. I think it is to strain the geodata requirement a little too much to require the type of geodata here. It is OK to request for information of where it can be found on the image page, but it should be the Wikipedia article about the museum, which is geocoded for these types of photos not the photo itself. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... Maybe I've been a bit psychorigid here! --Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychorigid! Cool term;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
