Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47

Australian Christian Lobby

Take a look soon 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

PR organisation

I tried just adding an asterisk and a note to the ones with a pending review. If there were separate sections, then there could be two entries for the same day (one or more pending review, one or more not). What do you think of my BOLD attempt? Will try to review the TV epsiode and its related PR tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good low-maintenance solution. I will update the asterisks when I do my daily checks on the backlog. Incidentally, there are only a few new PR noms in the period 27–30 October, so we may get the backlog down – to single figures, even! Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking these. If there are no PRs with pending reviews, I would comment out (hide) the note at the bottom for that day. I am hopeful that we can finally review all PRs more than 14 days old (i.e. ones that have been closed by the bot and re-opened by me). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Les pêcheurs de perles

The matter shall have my immediate attention after breakfast tomorrow. I'll enjoy truffling under the JSTOR trees. Pray keep an eye on your email in-tray. As you have started a precedent of citing limericks, I send you this, from I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue, contributed a line at a time by the usual suspects, ending with Barry Cryer:

There was a young girl from Sri Lanka
Who had an affair with a banker
She gave him her all
He made a withdrawal
And then didn't bother to thank her.

For some reason this was omitted from the ENO production a few years back. Thine, Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear! This game could go on and on...but thanks for the JSTOR help and I'll keep an eye on the email in-tray. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ENO production: I've sent you an email with some (I hope) useful attachments. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

TFL review notice

Hello Brian. Just wanted to let you know that I offered a review of Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration at WP:TFLS. At your convenience, I invite you to have a look at them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for letting me know; I had clean forgotten about this. Unfortunately I am very strapped for time at the moment. Your first point seems to involve quite a small tweak, which anyone could do; the second I can't work out the meaning of, but if it is a technical adjustment to the table, that is fine by me, too. The table has changed quite a bit since I nominated it for FL three years ago, and I am more than happy for others to do any remaining tuning. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Scott memorial binton.jpg

Hi Brian, can you take a look at the local (Wikipedia) history of this image in question? Specifically, what was the original licensing Malcolm Farmer (talk · contribs) released this image under? {{PD-Art}} is wrong since stained glass windows are not considered 2D works of art. The underlying subject (Kempe's art) qualifies for freedom of panorama but we need to ascertain the licensing the photograph was released under. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, I looked as an admin. The image was uploaded by Malcolm Farmer and originally had no license (way back on August 24, 2002), then Quadell added the {{Unknown}} tag on October 4, 2005. Soon after at 20:13 on October 4, 2004, Malcolm Farmer changed the licnse to {{PD}}, and on 22:57, February 2, 2006, Malcolm Farmer changed it to {{PD-self}}. The only other license change made before it was transferred to Commons and deleted here, was by Papa November on Novemeber 4, 2007 but he changed it to {{PD-art-life-70}} - no other license changes were by the image's creator, Malcolm Farmer. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Ruhrfisch. It appears I misread PD-Art (apparently stained glass windows can apply if taken head-on) but I think this just make things clearer. Jappalang (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ionian Islands under Venetian rule

Thank you so much about your response and your suggestions! First of all I have some questions to make. I know about the Lead but I have no time for it at the moment. If you can do anything it would be wonderful! I removed much of the things at the top of the map, what do you think? About MOS, some refs lack publisher information because I did not find any. Is it that necessary? I didn't understand anything from what you said about images. Somebody else told me something about images, too. So, shall I remove them? I didn't understand what you are trying to say about the disambiguation link either. Can you please do it? And finally about the population table. These are the only figures I found, because census where not carried out at the same year for each island. Do you think it should be removed? I know language is a big issue but that's because I am not a native speaker. Can you please have a look at the rest of it, too? Thank you, --Marcofran (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and help you with some of these things, though it may be a day or two because I am very busy at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand! It's OK!! :))) Thank you so much! --Marcofran (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left some updated commemnts on the PR review page. Brianboulton (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LFC in Europe FAC

Hi Brian, just to let you know I've had addressed your comments at the FAC, so whenever you have a spare moment it would be great if you could see if the paragraph is in better shape. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brian, sorry to keep pestering you, but I was wondering if you had any more observations you would like to make. The article could do with a few more comments, and seeing as you only commented on the lead so far, I was wondering if you would be kind enough to have a look at the rest of the article, Cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about pestering (I am a Liverpudlian). However, I really don't think I can spend much more time with the article. I'd say that there are significant prose issues which are going to need a while to sort out; for example, this paragraph:-
The first continental competition organised by UEFA was the European Cup in 1955. It is the most prestigious European competition and was conceived by Gabriel Hanot, the editor of L'Équipe, as a competition for winners of the European national football leagues.[1] When the European Cup was first played Liverpool were in the Second Division, after they were relegated from the First Division during the 1953–54 season.[2] The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was also established in 1955, this was later re-branded as the UEFA Cup when it came under the auspices of UEFA in 1971.[3] During their time in the Second Division a further competition was created; the UEFA Cup Winners Cup, which was for the winners of domestic cup competitions.[3]
This muddling of information about the founding of the two cup competition with irrelevant information about Liverpool's 1953–54 relegation and league placement is confusing. Also, the facts that the European Cup is the most prestigious competition and that it was founded by Gabriel Hanot are unrelated and should not be joined in one sentence with an "and". You say that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA in 1971, but not who was responsible for it before. These kinds of issues seem prevalent in other places within the article, but I don't have time to identify them. Should the article be archived at FAC, and should you then bring it to PR, I'll be happy to give it more detailed attention a couple of weeks down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles

You need not hurry regarding the quarter, I will be at sea for another week, though some say it is a personal perpetuity. I did see a couple of typos looking through it, so why don´t you wait until the 15th to do it to give me the chance at correction at rates less than a dollar a minute. (You need not fear, I am safely off the vessel at present and catching up on West Brom´s deplorable effort against Arsenal.) I have found ample time to complete one book on Mark Hanna, and should be raring to go when I return from this ship of fools. Nicaragua showed up off the port bow last night. The Captain says he was expecting it. I have my doubts.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are pleasurably engaged. I will do as you say and leave my review of the coin article until just before 15th. By that time my centenary article, Amundsen's South Pole Expedition (a rare revist to my former polar haunts) should be at FAC so you'll be able to check it out there if you feel so inclined. West Brom are known here as the "Baggies" and are the object of some amusement to us East Midlanders. I assume by Mark Hanna you mean the political fixer rather than the author of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Danger offer

Hi there Brian. Thank you kindly for this offer, it means a great deal to me. Once the FAC is withdrawn (I've just talked with Georgia about this) I'll look to open another peer review. Of course, take as long as you wish to procrastinate, there's no deadline. ;) Thanks again, sincerely. Best,— Joseph Fox 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I aim to start this on about Thursday (10 November). Can you, meantime, deal with the first of the two points I mentioned at the FAC, re Xbox? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Your help would be appreciated

Hi. I'm considering nominating the article Birth control movement in the United States for FA status, but before I do, user SandyGeorgia suggested that it go through a peer review. In fact, she named you specifically as a great reviewer. So, if you have some time to look at the article's the peer review request, I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well. that's kind of Sandy, and I must remember to return the favour some time. The problem is, peer review has been hit with a surge of nominations in the last few days, which threatens to raise the backlog of articles awaiting review to unprecedented heights. Your article does look like the sort of meaty effort that I like to review, but in the circumstances I won't be able to look at it immediately - I reckon around a week's delay, at least. On thing you could do is to visit the PR backlog and do a couple of peer reviews yourself; that will help to relieve the pressure and could bring your own article's review date forward. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for considering it. There is no rush ... a week or two is fine. I have already done a quid pro quo in PR, on the RMS Titanic article, and I'm planning on doing some more. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Your efforts at PR are of course much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Brianboulton, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Brianboulton/Sandbox2.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

I have this up at peer review, should you care to look in at your leisure. I am genuinely unsure what to do with it, and will welcome any (decorous) suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look forward to doing this. Have you noticed, by the way, that Faure bears a strong resemblance to an elderly Jimmy Edwards? Or am I the only one around who still remembers who Jimmy Edwards was? Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
By no means; I saw him and the great Eric Sykes in a farce called Big Bad Mouse in the 1970s. They were the first cast; the replacement cast was Fauré and André Messager. Tim riley (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Messager, as I have observed before, is a double for Adrian Boult. By the way, Jimmy Edwards was a Mahler fan. I know this, because (around the time your auntie was taking you to see Big Bad Mouse) I encountered Edwards at the RFH in the bar, after a performance of Mahler 7th. I sneaked up as close as I dared, to try and hear what the great man was saying and, lo and behold, he was engaged in a thoughtful and knowledgeable analysis of the music which we had just heard. No jokes. I thought better of him after that moment, and in his honour I will give special attention to his lookalike's piano music. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The Fauré piano music article is now a candidate for featured article if you care to look in and comment, support or oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piano music of Gabriel Fauré/archive1. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha!

I see you have an FAC you did not tell me about. I will be on it today or tomorrow. I am not yet home but they do not charge for wifi at the airport here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't want to impose all that ice on you while you were cruising in the Caribbean. It's the Amundsen centenary article so it's got to be good. I'm working on the Washington quarter review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I expect to be too tired for effective work by the time I get home tonight, but I will be on it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for Washington. I need to clear up the comments on the gold pieces and work on Hanna, then I will review yours. I would like to have Hanna at PR by the end of the month, and I have a long page of offline entries I made I need to integrate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
You needn't give priority to Amundsen. It has (I think) six supports and no outstanding issues, so it may well get promoted soon. If he gets stalled at FAC by some awkward late comments, or looks in nead of revitalising, you may be able to rattle the cage a bit; otherwise, catch up with your own work. I'll be most happy to review Hanna (of whom my present knowledge is zero) when the time comes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I will watchlist that one and get going on Tim's Fauve PR. Thank you. I'll still read it over, I know the story generally but the details are no doubt interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, it is promoted. You are like the magic sword, effective against all!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it is Mark Hanna in case you thought cartoons ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Caruso in The Pearl Fishers 1916.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Caruso in The Pearl Fishers 1916.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr Bot, I had the template brackets in the wrong place. Naughty, naughty....

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Hello

Hi there. Seen your work around the FAC page. I was wondering, if it's not too much trouble, if you could please take a quick look at an article I've been working on. It failed FAC months ago, because, to be honest, it just was not ready (the prose was among its many problems), and I've been working on it since. If you're too busy, then that's fine. There's absolutely no rush. The article is pretty long, so I'd be satisfied if you're able to review only one section (or even a paragraph). Thanks in advance.

PS: I know beggars aren't choosers, but "writing and recording" and "song structures" have been the most problematic sections (the intro, plus the couple sections before these, have been previously reviewed). Feel free to leave any comments on the talk page, as others have. Thanks. Orane (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It may be a few days before I can get to this. There is a huge backlog at WP:Peer review which needs tackling, and I have a few other prior commitmeents, but I'll try to help when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much. And take your time. There is absolutely no rush. Orane (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I have posted stuff on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Peer reviews

As someone who does a lot of peer reviews, I was wondering if you'd be prepared to give some advice? I just left several comments at Talk:Amundsen's South Pole expedition (and I'm hoping you and the other editors of that article don't mind that too much, on the principle that articles can still be improved, even after FAC). I realised early on that I was saying stuff on that talk page that I should have said at the peer review (which I only saw a few days before it closed), or possibly at the FAC (a venue I'm more reluctant to take part in now, unless I can keep my comments short as I don't think the longer reviews are always appreciated). What I wanted to ask was how you get the balance right when doing peer reviews? Reading through that article and making the comments I did took me several hours spread over a few evenings. When the FAC closed (earlier than I had expected), I had considered not finishing the notes, but it seemed a bit pointless to start something like that and not carry through with it. It also seemed easier to just make the simpler edits (which I did at first), but as I got further and further into the article, I realised I'd need to make notes and from that point on it seemed simpler to just stick to notes rather than editing. Is there an approach that you find works best? Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone feeling discouraged from reviewing. I just PR-nommed United States Assay Commission. Hold my feet to the fire.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Carcharoth, thanks for your interest in the Amundsen expedition article, and for continuing to review it even after it has, so to speak, crossed the finishing line. I was a little surprised by the speed with which it was promoted, and had expected it to be at FAC for several more days. It was at PR for a couple of weeks, but articles are not always picked up there.
Some of your points relate to minor fixes, and these can be done quite quickly. Others require a little more consideration, as they touch on decisions taken during the article's development about what levels of detail to include, particularly in relation to relatively peripheral issues. It will be several days before I can work through your points in detail because I am currently snowed under with outstanding obligations, but I will respond on the talk page in due course - as may my conom.
On your general point about reviewing procedure, I usually make minor fixes (punctuation, links, typos etc) as I go through, but leave everything significant to the nominator. I am happy for my own reviewers to do the same. While I'm on this point, any help that you are able to give on the WP:PR page would be greatly appreciated; the backlog of articles awaiting review is reaching alarming proportions.Brianboulton (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I will try and look at the peer review page at some point soon, and do any that are languishing. If I have time after that, I might look at the one Wehwalt suggested. On the editing vs notes points, I think making some edits gives those whose articles you are reviewing an idea of what you mean. After getting burned at one point when editing too much while doing a review, I tend to just make notes, but after leaving notes for others on talk pages or user talk pages (two recent examples spring to mind) rather than do edits myself, and seeing nothing get done (despite initial responsiveness), it can feel a bit pointless. It can be very hard to find a polite way to remind someone about something they appear to have forgotten about, as the reaction is invariably "I hadn't forgotten, stop pestering me". That is the difference, I suppose, between talk page discussions and structured review processes. Also, one of the peer reviews I did many months ago was either not followed up or was followed up later but after I'd moved on (I tend not to watchlist such things). There is also the point Truthkeeper raised on the WT:CIVIL page recently, about how timing is everything when trying to suggest something about an article. If someone is busy trying to write other content, they are not always going to appreciate suggestions about something that they've moved on from, or consider finished. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
One thing to remember about peer reviews, even within the structured process, is that editors are not obliged to follow the reviewer's recommendations for changes. I have done hundreds of PRs; a surprisingly high proportion don't even get acknowledged, let alone acted on. Apart from the lack of good manners, that's not a problem for me; I don't chase up peer reviews. If the article comes to FAC with my issues ignored or unresolved, that's a different matter. When doing peer reviews I will usually make a few minor fixes (grammar, punc, typos) as I go along, if only to let the editor know that I am reading the article - and to keep my list of comments down. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review followup

Last month you did a peer review for me here. You left several comments, and over the last couple of weeks I have been using your comments as a checklist for improving the article. I've done most of what you recommended, though the pictures and US bias still need some more work. (I am still having trouble with the licensing of the handcart statue image. I'm currently trying to make it into a non-free image.) Anyway, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at the article. I see that you have written several featured articles, which makes me value your opinions. I'm a fairly new editor, and a mediocre writer, so I have little hope of getting this article featured, but I'd at least like to bring it to a Good Article status. Thanks. -- Adjwilley (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've taken another look, and the article seems in better shape, now. However, I notice that some statements, e.g. "Mormons also oppose addictive behavior such as viewing pornography and gambling" and "Many black Mormons are members of the Genesis Group, an organization of black members that predates the priesthood ban, and is officially endorsed by the church" are still uncited. A number of your uncited statements appear at the ends of paragraphs, which make them particularly noticeable. Also, there are still citation tags in place indicating unsupported inforrmation, so considerable further work is needed on this aspect. I haven't had time to check out the prose in detail, though the parts I have looked at read quite well. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll continue working on the citations. As far as I can tell, the information is accurate, it's just a matter of tracking it down again in the sources. Curse me for not doing it right the first time. Do you think it would be out of line to submit it for a good article review after I add several more citations? -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
GA is a bit of a lottery. You may get a superficial reviewer who says "fine, fine" while ignoring or not recognising any problems, or you may get an opinionated idiot who wants to steer the article in a particular way and won't yield. Or you may strike it lucky and get a balanced, helpful review. I have seen utter rubbish passed at GA, which makes me somewhat sceptical about having articles reviewed there, or reviewing there myself, but off the cuff I'd say this article is well within the GA quality range. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Mark Hanna at peer review

Still needs a few images, but I'm hopeful of getting some. I think it turned out reasonably interesting, when you consider that most of the people in the article are almost unknown today unless they became president, which Hanna did not. There is no hurry, I am not asking for it to jump the queue, and I plan to do a couple of PRs this weekend. Although I am sure you have enjoyed your nodding acquaintance with Mr. Barber (who was English by birth, actually) but now time for other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Saint Goudens was an Irishman no doubt. I am stuck in the mire on Les pêcheurs de perles, having written the same couple of sentences about eight times, and they still don't sound right. Grrrrr!!! So reviewing Hanna might be a welcome diversion, though I have a couple I've promised to do first. But I'll get there soon. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you believe that Saint-Gaudens designed a monument to Hanna in Cleveland? I am going to have to track down pictures. But all the articles connect up. Give me a holler when you are done with the fishers, I will certainly enjoy that review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy as a future candidate for feature article status

i am wondering if you can have a look at the article, if you don't mind. this was something that you promised you would do for me, when you encouraged me to withdraw the nomination for feature article status. i would like to put the article forward again for FA status, but at this moment, i'm not sure when this will be and also i want to take my time too.

since the failed nomination for feature article status back in July of this year, the article has undergone a copy-edit; a tidy-up and reference work. there has also been a lot of new information added to the article since then, such as travel distances to the town; a paragraph on the covenanting wars (including the Battle of Kilsyth); St Brycedale Church and Adam Smith Theatre; Tiel (West) Burn and East Burn and recent developments on the Old Kirk

i have included a [1] to my own talk page, as advised by Mutt Lunker who has been giving me a lot of help with the article recently. Kilnburn (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have been trying to keep up with various obligations. I had not forgotten your request, and will be looking at the article shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

just in case, you didn't see my response to the review comments, i want to make sure that the article is ready for when it does go under another FAC. also, thank you for your copy-editing work. i am though going to consult another editor since i don't want to put you under a lot of strain with the article. i have to remember that you have other commitments on here and i feel it is more important for you to deal with these. like you say, the article is going to need a lot of work, which i accept. Kilnburn (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice

I am reviewing Ionian Islands under Venetian rule for GA. The article is good, and I am inclined to promote it, but I noticed some concerns in the peer review that may not have been dealt with. What are your recommendations on the matter? Again, I am leaning toward promoting the article, but am hesitating because of these concerns. DCItalk 17:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to tell me what you think the outstanding issues are; I don't have time to work it out for myself. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tranmere Rovers L.F.C.

Thanks a bunch for your constructive review. Whilst I have been able to address many of your concerns, would you mind taking another look? U+003F? 22:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few commens to the PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! U+003F? 17:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Les pêcheurs de perles recordings

The youtube link did not provide details of fixation/publication, but I presume it is very much likely "Del tempio al limitar", 89007.[2] Unfortunately, according to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, I fail to see how those recordings are "fully in the public domain". Only if the recordings were fixed/published first in the United States between 15 Feb 1972 and 1 March 1989 without abidance to the copyright laws, would they be assuredly in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Like you, I assume the Youtube recording is the one listed in the Victrola book. If this is indeed so then surely, as it was published by the Victor Recording Company in the United States before 1923, it is out of copyright in the US? I don't understand why this should be different from other pre-1923 publications. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that under US law, sound recordings are handled differently from other works (literary, works of art, music scores, etc). The unifying federal common law only gradually came into effect on conception, covering literary, works of art, music scores, etc. Sound recordings were, however, left out until much later (1972). PDInfo explains that when common law finally covered sound recordings, it considered all pre-1972 recordings as being first published in 1972. This pretty much fits in with the 2067 (1972 + 95) expiry date noted by Cornell University's chart, so I think PDInfo is correct. Jappalang (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; if that is what the law says, so be it, even though it is difficult to see the logical justification behind it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Brian, a quick one while I go check up the photograph: It is not okay to "provide external links to the YouTube recording[s] of the Caruso/Ancona duet and to other arias". Unless those Youtube videos were provided by the copyright holders (or were uploaded explicitly with their permission), this falls foul of WP:LINKVIO. Jappalang (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding File:Théâtre Lyrique (Place du Châtelet) 1862 - Huebner 1990 plate8.jpg, I think User:Robert.Allen has to be contacted for more details. Did Huebner state the image was published in 1862? I suspect this is not a photograph, but an engraving of this photograph (too much similarities), a work probably by Eugéne Fabius in 1870[3] for the French National Government propaganda about the Commune.[4] Key thing to determine for the image on Commons is when was it published. An alternative image is File:Theatre Lyrique (1863).jpg (not as beautiful, but at least we have publication detail). Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it fall under 70 years dead rule? These are EU pix, and it would not be very likely that the photographer could have survived to 1941?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
For the US, the 70-year-dead rule applies only to items published after 2002 or never published at all; that is why Commons items published abroad would have two copyright tags (one US and one for country of origin) that notes the item as public domain in both countries. This engraving is quite likely published before 1923 (which would also be PD under US law, but it would be better to be proved), but I am not so certain it is depicting 1862 (as insinuated above by Fabius's 1870 work). Jappalang (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Théâtre Lyrique (Place du Châtelet) 1862 - Huebner 1990 plate8.jpg

(Note: This is a continuation of the previous thread)

Huebner explicitly states the illustration depicts the theatre in 1862, which was the year that it opened. Thus, the year of creation appears to be firmly established, neither earlier nor later. Your idea that it is based on a later photo is intriguing, but there are some significant differences between the image from Huebner and the photograph you say was taken by Fabius c. 1870, such as the tree in front of the fountain in the Place du Chaâtelet and the tree which obscures the main-floor window in the left-hand bay of the theatre facade. Why would the creator have added trees to obscure the fountain and the theatre? This view of the theatre was likely popular, e.g., see File:Théâtre de la Ville cpa.jpg. The similarity to the c. 1870 photo is most likely fortuitous. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. As it may be difficult to provide explicit proof that this image was published (as distinct from created) before 1923, I think the safe course would be to use the slightly less good image suggested by Jappalang. Should proof of publication of the 1862 image be forthcoming later, we can switch to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Robert, it could be fortuitous, but the similarities are striking. This is my attempt at overlaying the images on each other. Details can be embellished (a common tactic of illustrators) but to me, the key details (lines, positions) seem the same. There are differences: the positions of lighter-tone stones on the canal walls on the left, the shadows of below the first arch, the barricades. However, the trees are there in the photograph and Huebner's illustration (so I am not sure why you said they are not in the photograph) and of the same height. It is quite unlikely that the trees would not grow in the space of 8 years (the postcard of Théâtre de la Ville shows the effects of ~30-year growth). There is also the possibility that Fabius's work might be a composite of previous work ("pasting" on barricades) for propaganda as suggested by one of the links I raised above.

Regardless, the concern here is more of satisfying the image's publication status when it comes to FAC. I believe the illustration might have appeared in L'Illustration but it would be best to have the details to let others verify it. Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that all the trees were missing. I only see two trees that are missing, and they also obviously missing in the overlay you made. (Maybe they were cut down before the photo was made.) In addition, the vertical perspective is somewhat different, which really shows up in the overlay comparison. Also, I rechecked Huebner's book (both the page with the photo and the list of illustrations). He does not provide any publication information. I've been looking on the BnF website, but so far I haven't found a catalog listing. Sometimes these images are part of a collection and don't get a separate catalog listing. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Robert, I was talking about those two trees. I see their trunks in the same locations (the one in front of the theatre is a bit faint, but the trunk of that in front of the fountain is dark enough to see in my view). Regardless, whether the scan Huebner used is derived from it is not my expertise to qualify. I think the only certainties here are:
  1. Huebner says the illustration he used represents the theatre in 1862
  2. the photograph (whether modified or not) was published for French propaganda in 1870. Jappalang (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A 1864 alternative can be found here: [5]. The photographer, Edouard Baldus, died in 1889. The trees lining the bank in the Huebner file are absent, so either a)they were cut down between 1862 and 1864 and replanted in time to grow to the same height for the 1870 photo, b) the Huebner file isn't from 1862 or c)the 1870 date for the other picture is wrong. I think you'd be better off just using the Baldus image. Yomanganitalk 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an interesting picture. I wonder whether there is a higher resolution version of it? BTW, the date of the photo from Chicago (Northwestern U) is not well established, just sometime before 1871. I don't find Jappalang's suggestion that the Huebner image is a copy of the Chicago pic very convincing, even less so now. The creator of the image from Huebner's book appears to be anonymous. Does that mean that in the US it is protected for 95 years after 1990 (earliest known publication) or was it already public domain by US law after 1982 (120 years after creation of a work by an unknown creator)? (I find all this very confusing. I wish someone could explain it to me in a way that I could understand.) Regarding the Baldus picture, was this ever published before this exhibition? What is its status in the US? --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A higher resolution (albeit "restored" and watermarked version) can be seen here
Copyright, as I understand it (Jappalang can correct me if I'm wrong):
For the US, photos created but not published before 1 January 1978 are protected for 95 years from when they are registered for copyright or 120 years(for works by identified individuals)/95 years (for anonymous or pseudonymous works) from their creation, whichever is shorter.
French copyright protection is fairly simple for photos by known author: 70 years after the death of the author. When the photo is anonymous or pseudonymous it gets more difficult: it is 70 years from the date of first publication if the publication takes place within 70 years of the creation, which means the maximum term is 139 years from creation. Unfortunately there is another grant of rights of 25 years to a subsequent owner on publication if the photo has never been published
So, for a 1862 anonymous photo the copyright would normally expire in both countries at the latest in 2001 (but if the photo was first published after 1985 it could still be copyrighted in France)
For an 1871 anonymous photo the copyright would normally expire at the latest in 2010 (but if the photo was first published after 1985 it could still be copyrighted in France)
For the Baldus 1864 photo the copyright would expire at the latest in 2009.
I tend to agree with Jappalang that the Huebner image is an illustration taken from another photo and probably the Chicago photo, but the quality is so poor that it is impossible to see if it is an illustration or just a very washed-out, poorly reproduced, and degraded photo (the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Seine and brickwork under the bridge look suspiciously hand-drawn though). Yomanganitalk 00:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes the 1862 image does look like an illustration or drawing from a photo (not much like an engraving) but as you say it's gone through at least a few reproduction processes (including the final low-quality paperback printing) making it difficult to tell for sure. But to try to assign it as a copy of a particular photo that happens to still exist seems highly dubious to me. [I see now that the actual credit for the 1862 image is the Bibliothèque de l'Opéra, but the BnF and Opéra catalogs are consolidated online, so that it should have shown up in a search.] Huebner gives creator credits for several plates: for example, he identifies Ary Scheffer as the painter of a picture of Pauline Viardot, and gives "S. H." for a photo of Gounod from 1879 and a photo of Gabrielle Krauss as Pauline in Gounod's Polyeucte (n.d.), so the 1862 image is very likely to be an anonymous work. BTW, thanks for your explanations and estimates of copyright durations, but note that the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Public domain#Current standard copyright duration in U.S. law reverses two of the time periods for anonymous works: 95 years from first publication and 120 years from creation, which is why I was thinking it would be public domain in the US after 1982 even if published in 1990, because the earlier date is the one which takes effect. (I don't follow why you say 2001. Also, do these US rules apply to all works, whether created in the US or not?) But France would give the "owner" (does this mean the BnF?) 25 years copyright on the image from 1990 on, if that's its first publication. (Would the US respect that French copyright because of the URAA?) In any case, it would appear that the Baldus photo is the only one we can be fairly certain is actually public domain in the US and in France. (Question: is a restored photo entitled to copyright protection for the restoration work?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, copyright compliance with US laws is a bit wretched in my opinion because the system is not uniform (they insist on retaining their publication-based rules for pre-2002 books). It is mixed fortune since the publication-based system allows for certain published material to be used regardless of the author's lifespan but exclude others because they were published at the right time with proper compliance.
US-side law regards a material to be published only if the printer did so with the authorization of the copyright holder. So unless Huebner printed the illustration with said permission, the material cannot be said to be published. Furthermore, since Huebner published his book in Oxford, United Kingdom, I believe the US extensions for works first published/registered between 1989 to 2002 do not apply to material in the book. Foreign publications (1924 onwards) generally fall into a "if it is PD in that country before 1 Jan 1996, then it is PD in US too". I think if the illustration was never published, it would be public domain in the US, provided that the illustration was indeed created in 1862 (actually as long as it was created before 1891).
"I was thinking it would be public domain in the US after 1982 even if published in 1990, because the earlier date is the one which takes effect.": Be careful there. Before 2002, US law granted perpetual copyright for unpublished material; hence, the publication-centric copyright law. Until the material was published, the law held that the legal copyright holders (the creator's estate) still had a valid claim. That ended in 2002, but if the material was first published in the US before then, it has a possible 95-year protection. One case illustrates this aspect of US copyright: Lewis Carroll's photographs that were not published in his lifetime (or by his nephew). His estate published them in the US in 2002, thereby copyrighting them in the US till 2047 (ref: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll).
Let me note that Wikipedia:Public domain requires updating (which I just did)...
That all said, I think Yomangani found us a gem here (I think it is a much better photograph than those mentioned earlier). So, without ado... take your pick.
  • From the Library of Congress
    From the Library of Congress
  • From the Metropolitan Museum
    From the Metropolitan Museum
  • From a Blogspot account
    From a Blogspot account
Personally, I prefer the Met's: it has much sharper details (despite the blotchy river) Jappalang (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all who have sustained this discussion and for the very worthwhile pics that have emerged. I have followed Jappalang's suggestion and posted the "Met" version of the above to the article, where it looks excellent. I don't think I shall ever get to grips with the complexities of US copyright law, but I am ever grateful to those who can. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill

Hi Brian, thank you very much for your feedback at the "One Tree Hill" FAC. I think I've addressed most of your points, and I've left a query regarding your note about the quotations. I hope that you can revisit the FAC page to see if the alterations I've made are satisfactory; the article has definitely improved as a result of your feedback. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_47&oldid=1142904946"