User talk:Yann
/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
- User:Yann/Valued images, 2009-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2019
- User:Yann/Quality images, 2005-2014, 2015-2016
- User:Yann/Featured images, 2009-2018
You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, you removed this file and CommonsDelinker removed the references to it. I guess it was a bit too speedy because CommonsDelinker hadn't processed the file move yet. Could you undo it? bdijkstra (overleg) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- It seems CommonsDelinker processed the file. It can take some time, but it will do the job once it is scheduled. Yann (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Joyeux Noël!
Happy holidays and best wishes!
Happy holidays!
Merry christmas! Best wishes for 2024! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
Wilfredor (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
* Happy Holidays! * | ||
-- George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi! Please, could you nominate this photo? I already have two active nominations. ★ 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Happy holidays, Yann!
Kia ora, Yann, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Thank you for all the hard work you've put in the last year to make Wikimedia Commons the place it is today. Enjoy the festive season from wherever you are in the globe.
Greetings from Te Moeka o Tuawe, Te Tai Poutini, Aotearoa. --SHB2000 on 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
Seasonal Greetings!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Yann, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Mariuva 2.png
Thanks for answering my earlier questions.
{{FOP}} for otherwise valid images that contain a sculpture, where the sculptor has their own IP rights... Thanks!
Your deletion log entry for File:Mariuva 2.png says COM:WEBHOST. I left a note somewhere, about looking into this image. I am pretty sure I concluded the individual had a measure of notability.
I have participated in some discussions where other people have called for deletion of images on notability grounds, when, in their opinion, the individual in the image would never measure up to the wikipedia's WP:GNG. I've argued that this is too high a bar. BLP says that individuals whose notability is not sufficient for a standalone article may receive some coverage in a subsection of a related article.
So, an image of an actor who is not notable enough for a standalone article, may nevertheless end up being used to illustrate an article on a movie or play they appeared in. I think this puts these kinds of images in scope.
I've made this suggestion multiple times, in the last couple of weeks. No one has offered their own opinion as to how notable an individual should be before their selfies are in scope.
Free images of individuals are hard to find. This means that we can end up with free images that are not well lit, or are slightly distorted, because they are cropped from the edge of a larger picture. When a notable individual's vanity triggers a complaint about the free image we are using I encourage them to upload a selfie they like better.
I've asked whether other people thought I was giving those notable people bad advice.
Can I ask you to clarify your position on this? When someone with some measure of notability uploads a selfie, so their image would be in scope, is it your position it should, nevertheless, be deleted on Com:WEBHOST grounds?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Her article was deleted on Portuguese Wikipedia, with only 2,290 Google hits, she is not notable enough to have an article. And this is most probably not a selfie, so the permission from the photographer is needed. Yann (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the coat of arms is used in a Wiki, so the first attempt for deletion was wrong. But what about the copyright? As already said, I think this COA is maybe no real coat of arms of an existing family (the use in the article is OR). It's maybe just artwork and fantasy. Artwork is under the protection of copyright. So the proper reason for deletion is copyvio. (Please note the copyright sign in the file!) GerritR (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @GerritR: Copyright violation of what? Can you show the source? Actually this CoA seems to exist: [1]. Yann (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The COA in the source is slightly different, if you look exactly. But talking about copyvio, I refer to Commons:Pcp. The uploader has to prove that the image is not under protection of copyright. If not, we have to assume that it is protected.--GerritR (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are a bit confused about Commons:PRP. This is not a reason to delete anything without a valid rationale. This design could be old, so you have to provide some evidence that it is a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The COA in the source is slightly different, if you look exactly. But talking about copyvio, I refer to Commons:Pcp. The uploader has to prove that the image is not under protection of copyright. If not, we have to assume that it is protected.--GerritR (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This one now? ★ 11:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Yann. All of my uploads (forget about the first one) have been copyrighted because "Cited YouTube-Video not published under CC-license". I already cited the YouTube-Video on my uploads under CC-BY-3.0 license, but you and User:Alexander-93 think it's not. Can you check the details of my uploads please? Also, ask him why all the cited YouTube videos are not in CC-license. Guyrichtheman (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: I indeed checked your uploads, and I didn't see a free license at the source. Yann (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- You did check the hidden category of CC-BY-3.0 right? Guyrichtheman (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: Which hidden category? Yann (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- CC-BY-3.0 license, as I said from all the uploads. Guyrichtheman (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: As I said above, there is no free license on the files you uploaded. Yann (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- CC-BY-3.0 license, as I said from all the uploads. Guyrichtheman (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: Which hidden category? Yann (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- You did check the hidden category of CC-BY-3.0 right? Guyrichtheman (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Age of Mythology: Retold trailer
Hi Yann!
As recent discussions tend to upload videos like game trailers with a CC license note, I wanted to ask if it makes also sense to upload the Age of Mythology: Retold trailer to Commons? The license note can be found here, for example. What do you think about this? Maybe you would like to upload the video if it is okay to upload, so I wanted to mention this.
Greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: Hi,
- Wasn't this one already uploaded? There is indeed a free license at IA, although the license was changed on YT. Yann (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I assume, it wasn't uploaded. I did not upload it back then, and it seems that there are no results on Commons while searching it... :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Could you restore this one too? Thanks! ★ 15:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I’m stupid
...and I can’t tell if this was addressed to me or not. I apologise if I said anything I shouldn’t’ve done - I intended to just relay information from enwiki that I thought was relevant (that a mediawiki dev’s comment implied that it wouldn’t be recommended to undelete a file at the same time it’s due to go on the main page), though I apologise if it was inappropriate.
Best, A smart kitten (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Can you put this file in categories: Category:Videos of cartoons Category:Videos of 1928 from the United States? Also give the templates {{Creator:Walt Disney}} and {{Creator:Ub Iwerks}}. OGPawlis (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Deletion requests
"Kenkichi Tomimoto (left) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg", "Kenkichi Tomimoto (right) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg", and "Kenkichi Tomimoto and Shinichi Sasagawa, circa 1917-1918.jpg". Shirogane10 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Battleship Potemkin (1925) by Sergei Eisenstein.webm 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. |
Mayimbú (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
File:The Chase (1946) by Arthur Ripley.webm 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. |
Mayimbú (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
File:The Circus (1928) by Charlie Chaplin (restored version).webm 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. |
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Mad Doctor
Yann, I have reservations about File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm. It contains the Pluto character, as mentioned in the comment next to the "Undelete in 2027" category which you removed. That character was not introduced at all until 1930, and probably only became a "character" in 1931. Secondly, the appearance of Mickey Mouse changed over time, and each film can add a derivative "layer" to a character, which will only expire layer by layer as 95 years is up on each of them. Per this site, there were some significant changes made to how Mickey was drawn in 1929, and those would not expire until next year. I would wait longer to restore this one. Perhaps next year, the Mickey related stills would be OK, but probably 2027 for the Pluto bits. I would really only restore Mickey stuff which came out in 1928, at this juncture. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I redeleted this. It is very confusing what works of Disney can be undeleted, and what can't. Yann (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. 1928 releases are a full go. After that, you get into argumentation on if there were copyrightable aspects added later (if a film was not renewed, etc.). But if those 1929+ works (which introduced any copyrightable changes/enhancements to the character, be it appearance or backstory or stuff like that) are still under copyright, then there could be an arguable problem if those aspects appear in later films which were not directly renewed. That link seems to mention two specific appearance changes which first appeared in 1929, so unless those movies were also not renewed, I'd tread carefully. But those additions would expire next year. The Pluto part though is more obvious for 2-3 more years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Clindberg and Yann: I made the note to not restore the file until 2027 because I was concerned that Pluto's name and status as Mickey's dog was not established until 1931. Also, I don't know whether there's some elements introduced in 1932 that The Mad Doctor also incorporates; I haven't looked too deeply into Disney historical lore, but I think the shorts are standalone enough that it's not like there's some overarching continuity to worry about as such. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor 1933 Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon.webm. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and relevant link, for any lurkers: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Clindberg and Yann: I made the note to not restore the file until 2027 because I was concerned that Pluto's name and status as Mickey's dog was not established until 1931. Also, I don't know whether there's some elements introduced in 1932 that The Mad Doctor also incorporates; I haven't looked too deeply into Disney historical lore, but I think the shorts are standalone enough that it's not like there's some overarching continuity to worry about as such. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor 1933 Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon.webm. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. 1928 releases are a full go. After that, you get into argumentation on if there were copyrightable aspects added later (if a film was not renewed, etc.). But if those 1929+ works (which introduced any copyrightable changes/enhancements to the character, be it appearance or backstory or stuff like that) are still under copyright, then there could be an arguable problem if those aspects appear in later films which were not directly renewed. That link seems to mention two specific appearance changes which first appeared in 1929, so unless those movies were also not renewed, I'd tread carefully. But those additions would expire next year. The Pluto part though is more obvious for 2-3 more years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask you to have a look at this one? I assume you have more experience than I as to how we name categories like this for French-language sources. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I won't contest the restoration, but what is our evidence this was published in 1930 rather than 1935-1937? Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- We could agree about "published between 1930-1936", it doesn't change the copyright status. Yann (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Undeletion of *post-Steamboat-Willie* Mickey Mouse appearance
Hi Yann; I have closely followed the news on Mickey Mouse as the character appeared in Steamboat Willie becoming public domain in the US (though not in Europe, as, for example, Germany, France, and Switzerland have treaties with the US that grant the work protection of 70 years pma, which is 2042 for Ub Iwerks - but this doesn't matter for a US work on Commons, of course). It's great that we can now host images of Mickey Mouse in the original appearance of the character. However, I have also read that this only applies to the very first, more "rat-like" design of Mickey Mouse (without gloves) yet; that is, an article for example explicitly stated that it doesn't apply to the later, more rounded design of Mickey Mouse with white gloves. So I wouldn't have undeleted File:Walt Disney and his cartoon creation "Mickey Mouse" - National Board of Review Magazine.jpg, as this is clearly not the Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse but a later design - that will probably become public domain in two or three years, too, but I think it's too early now. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, There are more publications of Mickey in 1928 than the movie. See File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg. Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If this poster was really published in 1928, then I "rest my case" and am satisfied - but then I still find it curious that others explicitly say that only the original version of Mickey Mouse without gloves has become public domain, for example here (in German, "Einerseits betrifft das abgelaufene Copyright nur die alte Version von Micky Maus, die beispielsweise keine Handschuhe trägt")... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no doubt about the publication date. See also the DR, where it was extensively discussed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg. The irony is that, since there is no copyright notice in this poster, this appearance of Mickey is probably in the public domain since 1928. But the point is moot now... Yann (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is really interesting information, I will pass it on to German-language's Wikipedia community where we also have a discussion about Mickey Mouse (more of a theoretical one, as we will not use these images for German-language Wikipedia due to the 70 years pma protection in German-language countries). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no doubt about the publication date. See also the DR, where it was extensively discussed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg. The irony is that, since there is no copyright notice in this poster, this appearance of Mickey is probably in the public domain since 1928. But the point is moot now... Yann (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If this poster was really published in 1928, then I "rest my case" and am satisfied - but then I still find it curious that others explicitly say that only the original version of Mickey Mouse without gloves has become public domain, for example here (in German, "Einerseits betrifft das abgelaufene Copyright nur die alte Version von Micky Maus, die beispielsweise keine Handschuhe trägt")... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
FM promotion
The file File:Eruption of Fagradalsfjall volcano, 2021-03-24, 2.webm, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest file on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Eruption of Fagradalsfjall volcano, 2021-03-24, 2.webm. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page. |
Thanks...
Thanks for working through the Featured Media backlog. Did you do it by hand or use a bot? Lorax (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
FP Promotion
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Artemis 2 Crew Portrait.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Artemis 2 Crew Portrait.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |