Wikisource talk:Image guidelines

See discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Implement_Wikisource:Image_use_policy and commons:Commons:Village_pump#Wikisoure:Image_use_policy.

Proposed categorization system

Primary hierarchy for scanned texts:

[[:Category:Oliver Twist scan]]-------|
[[:Category:Great Expectations scan]]-|--> [[:Category:Charles Dickens texts]] ------|
                                                                                     |
[[:Category:The Art of War scan]]      --> [[:Category:Sun Tzu texts]] --------------|
                                                                                     |
[[:Category:The Scarlet Letter scan]]  --> [[:Category:Nathaniel Hawthorne texts]]---|-> [[:Category:Scanned English texts]]
                                                                                     |
[[:Category:Moby Dick scan]]----------|                                              |
[[:Category:Bartelby scan]]           |--> [[:Category:Herman Melville texts]]-------|
[[:Category:Billy Budd scan]]---------|

In parallel, categories of scans could be organized by genre and topic, as follows, assuming the other categories already exist:

[[:Category:Oliver Twist scan]] --> [[:Category:Oliver Twist]] --> [[:Category:Fiction books]]

[[:Category:The Art of War scan]] --> [[:Category:The Art of War]] --> [[:Category:War tactics]]

Feel free to make changes to the above. Specific questions:

• Should category names be more specific? Many books, including The Art of War, do not have unique titles.
• Should there be an additional level of the primary hierarchy that defines the author's country of origin?

Any other suggestions are welcome. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, although i'm not sure if a category for each book is needed if there is going to be a gallery for each one. But that does not change the overall structure, just the type of the "leafs" of the tree.

I don't think the country of origin is important here, but the language is. The title of the book category (or gallery page) should contain the language, at least if it's not clear from the title itself - i.e. we may have the "Oliver Twist" in English, Chinese and German, the name always being the same. So perhaps use Oliver Twist scan (german); Consequently, there would have to be Category:Charles Dickens texts (german), which would have to be in Category:Scanned German texts and in Category:Charles Dickens texts or directly in Category:Charles Dickens

The categories for scanned books must always be contained in some way in the author's category - which in turn would be reachable by country of origin - i.e. Category:Charles Dickens would be in Category:Writers from Britain

To disambiguate titles like Principia Mathematica, use the full- or subtitle (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica) or the author (Principia Mathematica (Newton))

All this being said: please take this discussion back to commons. It concerns category structure on commons, and it also concerns other wikisource projects (like the german one) since all should share the same structure. It's important to discuss it there. I'll put a copy of my comment into the village pump thread there. -- commons:User:Duesentrieb 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

File name of author portraits

I suggest to change the recommended file name for author portraits from "Author name (date of birth)" to "Author name (born date of birth)" or "Author name (date of birth–date of death)" (cf. dates of birth and death), because otherwise one might confuse the date with the creation date of the portrait. I do not want to edit it in right now as a poll about the guideline is currently in progress. Sorry for bringing this not-terribly-important issue up so late; I was offline for half a month.--GrafZahl 13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Author name (born date of birth)", which is simpler. The parenthetical information is mostly to disambiguate between the many author name conflicts. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 02:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. What is the process of amending a guideline when the suggested changes are, on the one hand, not terribly important, but, on the other hand, do not classify as minor either?--GrafZahl 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore my question, I mixed up the "editing strictness" of policies vs. guidelines. I'll commit the change right away.--GrafZahl 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of images

I've worked through 0-9 & A of the images in "Special:Prefixindex/Image:" in the hopes of bringing some order to the images we have here, and migrating them to the commons where appropriate. Many have been tagged with {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}}, even if they need work before they should be transwiki'ed. Below is are the images in that range that I couldnt quickly verify were PD.

Value to commons not obvious

• Image:11text.jpg
• Image:11texta.jpg
• Image:11textb.jpg
• Image:16texta.jpg
• Image:16texta1.jpg
• Image:16textb2.jpg
• Image:18651226 our city railroads.jpg
• Image:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism fig4.png, "Fig. 4" needs to be striped from the image
• Special:Prefixindex/Image:Aasm-fig, I havent looked through them all, but many look specific to the book; some look like they could be quite useful if a bit of documentation was added: Image:Aasm-fig5-19-colour.jpg
• Special:Prefixindex/Image:Agrippa, some need to be worked on before they are useful on commons
• Image:Amazing Grace-Olney 1779.jpg
• Image:Lord's Prayer Oneida translation.png
• Image:KeepOffTheGrass.PNG, this was used on Extracts from Adam's Diary, but I replaced the image with HTML.
• Image:Title page Old NY Frontier.png
• Special:Prefixindex/Image:Blenheim, most of these look useful, however some would be more useful rotated. John Vandenberg 04:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status not obvious

• Image:40px-9pointedstar.png (unused)
• Special:Prefixindex/Image:AK47Figure
• Image:166.jpg
• Image:3InfRegtDUI.PNG — not sure whether this is the work of the US Federal govt
• Image:Aasm-title.gif; is the painting also in the public domain?
• Image:Abdullah.jpg
• Special:Prefixindex/Image:AfghanPage; Doesnt appear to be 1923 or earler
• Image:Aesop.jpg
• Special:Contributions/Rbreindel; a few of these uploads can be worked out
• Image:Albert_the_Great.jpg
• Image:AndreNorton.jpg

Already on commons

• Image:200px-Napoleon_Bonaparte.jpg
• Image:200px-James I of England.jpg - clipped version of commons:Image:JamesIEngland.jpg
• Image:Joseph_Brant-Thayendanegea.jpg - black and white version of commons:Image:Joseph_fayadaneega_called_the_brant.jpg, however the commons version doesnt have the notice underneath the image
• Image:Old_NY_Frontier_Patent_Map.png - a smaller version of this is commons:Image:Halsey Old NY Frontier Patent Map small.png
• Image:180px-Chekhov 1898 by Osip Braz.jpg

Name conflict with commons

• Image:Amos_Bronson_Alcott.jpg

Before I go too much further, I have a few questions.

1. Why do we have 200px versions of images on commons; is this a performance issue, to standardise both height and width of images on the Author: pages, or something that has just happened?
2. Should the images that are not clearly in the PD be placed on Wikisource:Possible copyright violations?
3. Is Wikisource a fair-use-free-zone? I have no intention of rocking any boats here, so I would like to know whether everyone is happy for clearly fair-use images (e.g. Image:BeneathClouds 160x256.jpg) to be fall under the {{sdelete}} hammer.

John Vandenberg 12:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC); updated John Vandenberg 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, the 200px version are not for standardization of Author pages and (as far as I know) there are no performance issues with displaying images with a larger resolution. Basically, I think these pictures are completely redundant if a higher res image exists.

The ones that aren't clearly free images and have poor tagging probably should be listed at WS:COPYVIO. That way we can work on getting them appropriately tagged or get them off the site.

And, WS explicitly excludes fair-use material, so any you find should be speedy deleted.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications; I've removed the use of images identical to the ones used on commons, and taken some of the above and others to Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#More_images. Among the ones listed there may be one or two that are PD, but I thought it was best to keep them together topically to be discussed wrt fair use. I'll keep listing the questionable cases in chunks of about ten in order to avoid extending the backlogs. John Vandenberg 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

This is one section we need to rewrite:

Where to upload

All images should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons (see the Commons upload page), a multilingual image repository that all Wikimedia projects can use. The only exceptions to this should be images that are strictly relevant only to the English Wikisource, such as a logo specific to a local project or a photograph specific to a local user.

I suggest we keep the first sentence as is. We need to direct users to Commons for most uploads with few exceptions.

For second sentence I suggest something similarly worded.

The only exceptions to this should be images that are strictly relevant only to the English Wikisource, such as a logo specific to a local project or a photograph specific to a local user, or images that Wikisource inclusion policy allows but are not permitted to be uploaded due to Commons policy related to conflicting international copyright laws.

Please tweak to perfect wording. FloNight 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Some recent discussions here and here. Image integrity is another aspect that needs to be documented. John Vandenberg 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering about uploading images to Wikisource if they're in line with our image policy but not with the Commons image policy. I asked a question at Commons yesterday; see here. I had noticed that the Commons licence template for works published before 1923 requires that they have been published in the US before 1923, whereas here it suffices simply that the work was published before 1923; the country doesn't seem to matter.

I'm interested in adding images to the Beatrix Potter books. The images are a very, very important part of her work. According to Wikisource policy, most (though not all) of them seem to be public domain because they were published before 1923, even though they won't become public domain by reason of death date of author until 2014. I was told at Commons that Commons requires that the images be in the public domain (or issued under a free licence) both in the US and in the country of origin, and that Beatrix Potter's work is not PD in the UK. Is it or is it not appropriate for me to upload all the Peter Rabbit, Benjamin Bunny, Mrs Tiggy-Winkle images here for use in the relevant books? Cowardly Lion 11:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that in the United States this book is considered to be in the public domain, while in the United Kingdom this book is held to still be under copyright. On the Commons, a work must be PD in its country of origin to be included, but on the English Wikipedia a work must only be PD in the U.S. to be included. (Different projects have different standards.) What is Wikisource's policy? Well, it is never explicitly stated on any of the policy pages. The issue came up before at User talk:BirgitteSB#Images?, and we all agreed to upload these images here and use them, at least until policy explicitly says that's not allowed. I made a recommendation to change our policy to make this more explicit, which you've already seen, at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes/rewrite, but it hasn't gained wide acceptance. I hope this answers your question. Quadell 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll wait a few days to see if there are any dissenting voices, and then I'll add the images. In the meantime, I intend to add Kipling's original illustrations to Just So Stories, which is certainly in the public domain both in the UK and the US, so I can add those images to Commons. I like Wikisource:What Wikisource includes/rewrite, by the way. I'd prefer to be at Wikisource a bit longer before I start having strong views on changing the finer details of image policy (which I'm still learning about), but I like that page because it spells out the policy or proposed policy more clearly, whether the changes are eventually accepted or not. Cowardly Lion 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to object, and I saw from recent changes that FloNight had already started uploading images that fit our policy but that wouldn't be acceptable on Commons, so I'll start. Cowardly Lion 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Djvu files for mass storage of all the images from a book

As a newbie, I found a trick to comfortably upload into Commons and use into my wikisource book many images from Equitation. I simply retailed all the images of pictures and drawings of the djvu image of the book: Image:Equitation.djvu, and I built up a second djvu file named Image:Equitation_images.djvu saving lots of time and - I presume - some space on the servers. I wrote too a simple template Template:Equitation image to put images into my proofread pages into Index:Equitation.djvu.

I'm sure that my newbie-try can be refined and expanded. --Alex brollo 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The one disadvantage about this approach is that the images cant be individually categorised on Commons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Nor they can be seen into a gallery. But... an article on Commons, containing a series of related thumbnails of them (i.e.: "Pictures from Equitation (book)", "Drawings from Equitation (book)", could be easily categorized without any need to duplicate them.... and all the images could be browsed and linked if needed. What do you think about? Let's go and try the trick? Here a test article: Equitation images djvu --Alex brollo 15:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for proofreaders

I'm trying to follow the guidelines, using Upload Wizard which works well. Some clarification needed—

In the Description, the example has the title linked. Do I link like that in commons? I’m thinking it should be [[s:title|''title'']]?

Where do I put {{original}}? In the description?

Do I need to understand galleries? It makes sense to me to make a title category in Commons for illustrated books, and individually categorizing book covers, initials, graphic frames and publishers logos for books without illustrations…

Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)