User talk:Solipsist/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other pages: main - talk - images - contrib - notes

Talk archive: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

---

Contents 1 Images 2 copyrights 3 name that butte (redux) 4 Breughel....Breugel.... 5 Monopoly/ Chess 6 Andy Mabbett 7 Art Categorisation (again) 8 Art is art 9 Architecture 10 Carnatic music 11 PigsOnTheWing Reverting 12 Art categories 13 Thanks! 14 David Hume 15 Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 16 Egyptian pyramids 17 All my dead categories 18 Gmail invitation 19 Lee Lawrie 20 Gmail invite 21 Edit attribution

[edit] Images

As a newbie I would like to ask your advice about obtaining images of paintings. I've seen Olga's Galery and http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html WEB GALLERY OF ART as sources. Can we copy from these sites without a problem? Do we have to provide links on the pages of the painters? A second question: would you like the classification of art-periods like Category:Renaissance art to be as comprehensive as possible or would you prefer that only the most outstanding painters get these categories? Pethan 15:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well the short answer is that copyright on images is a bit of a mess. There is a fair bit of Wikipedia advice at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines along with associated talk pages. The highlighted summary as I understand it is;

1. Copyright rules vary around the world, but it is best to pay attention to the US copyright rules, because they are the most liberal and Wikipedias servers are in Florida
2. Copyright lasts for 70 years following the death of original artist
3. all images published in the United States before 1923 are now public domain. (US only)
4. there can be various levels of copyright that apply to the same image. One for the original artist, and another for the photographer who photographed it; however
   1. a photograph (and by implication a scan) which just reproduces a painting, isn't a creative work in its own right and so can't be protected by copyright. The original painting still might be. (possibly US only)
5. you often can't trust the copyright messages put on other websites, or indeed the lack of any copyright. They can copyright the design of the website and any original writing and photographs. But they often claim copyright on everything because they either can't be bothered noting all the exceptions or figure it is safer just to scare everyone off.
6. there is also a particularly fuzzy rule about 'fair use' where you can essentialy break a copyright under certain conditions
7. all these rules are open to interpretation and may not have been tested in a court of law.

So photos of Renaissance paintings are OK in the US, with this picture the photo may be copyright if published in the UK. Most modern paintings and later are probably still under copyright of the original artist.

I've not seen any discussion of whether a photograph of a sculpture is copyright or not. My (worthless) interpretation is that with this image, Moore's sculpture itself is clearly copyright of the Moore foundation and within 70 years of his death. This view of it and the lighting is a creative composition so I hold the copyright on the photograph, but I have licensed it under creative commons. A lot of enclosed galleries like to forbid photography because they are trying to prevent the release of images where they can't control the copyright and gain reproduction royalties. I would like to be able to show a picture of an early direct carved Henry Moore, but so far I haven't been able to get a photograph with clear copyright.

On the other points,

• yes always put a link on the image page for where the image came from. That way people an check whether a copyright claim on the source is correct, or whether your interpretation is likely to be correct.
• always add the appropriate copyright tag from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags

I'm totally open on the categorisation of art-periods - please add to the discussion at Category_talk:Art. In particular it would be good to add some guidance on how to draw the boundaries for periods (dates etc) or add addition periods or sub periods if required . Similarly, selecting a range of artistic movements might be helpful. There is plenty to work from at Art history and linked pages.

I would have thought anyone where you can fairly say 'X is a Renaissance painter' should be in Category:Renaissance art, unless they can go in a more specific subcategory. Similarly an article on a Renaissance painting would go in there. The problems will be the people who bridge from one period to the next. -- Solipsist 17:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] copyrights

i am developing an email request letter to send to publishers asking to use 72 dpi scans from their books for wikipedia. the first place i sent one to sent me a reply that their permission office was closed for two weeks. There will be more attemps. Thanks for the Munson pics. The copyright for the shot of her looking out the window, for example, is held by Neal P. Graffy Photographic Collection, about whom I intend to learn more. Carptrash 20:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, as long as the photo was published in the US before 1923, its fair game and we don't need clearance or licensing. I don't have conclusive proof that this particular picture was published before 1923, but as it was taken in 1916-18 so most likely was, and I think we can wait for the original publishers to raise an objection.

You might also like to check Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission which already has some collaboratively developed some form letters/emails which might help. -- Solipsist 21:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] name that butte (redux)

Thanks for your help with identifying Monument Valley. I'm going to upload an annotated version, the work-in-progress version of which is at [1]. Before I update it proper, I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that looks pretty good. I've visited the valley in a car, but really I don't know well enough to be sure your labelling is correct. I've a couple of other comments though;

• the white line below Monument Pass, is that US 163
• many guides mention a visitor centre in the Navajo National Park. If you can figure out its approximate possition, it would be worth marking as it appears to be a common starting point for many people.

Also the Fitzwilliam Museum article could use a nice picture, even one in the rain would do ;-) -- Solipsist 21:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've added it to Monument Valley, with US 163 noted as you suggest. I think the visitor centre isn't in the area of the photo (I can't see anything artificial looking, and nothing building-like appears on the myriad little fragments of USGS topo maps that I've sellotaped together). I'll add a Fitzwilliam photo too, but it will be a rainy one. It always rains in Cambridge; it's like a soggy Narnia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks good -- Solipsist 23:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Breughel....Breugel....

I defer to you on this one. I'm familiar with Breughel in a very general sense (I do love his work), and when I saw the question at the help desk, I noticed the questioner called him Breugel. I thought "hmmm, did I have the spelling wrong?" and checked the article...the title seemed to bear me out. So I thought I'd fix the captions while I was at it. It seems to me that it would be better for the article to call him "Pieter Breughel the Elder" for the sake of consistency with the title, but I do see your point about his name change. I haven't checked our practice on an article like Muhammad Ali to see how he's referred to, given his famous name change. If you think there is a useful distinction to be made there, by all means, revert my edits. :-) I just find it confusing to operate with two spellings for a last name within one article, but if it appears to be a conscious change on Pieter the Elder's part, and not merely a consequence of the loose attitude to spelling in that time period, then it does make sense. Sorry to have caused the trouble, although of course any trouble I may cause is merely the chaos you choose to will within your universe of one, in which case perhaps no apology is necessary. Peace. Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Monopoly/ Chess

I am almost certain that chess is the most played game in the world. It would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to determine the number of chess boards sold in the world. Perhaps Guinness only counts those games under the control of individual companies. If, however, you deem fit, I would not object to reinstating the phrase "best selling game." -- Emsworth 20:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Mabbett

From experience, I know that Andy Mabbett is a user who holds firm opinions and defends them vigorously, though not always through discussion. For example, he ignored comments on the talk page and arbitrarily reverted to his chosen version on Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, without so much as a reply to the comments of others. But at present, I advise you that your dispute with him is not personal: it only concerns a particular category. Therefore, I think that "Article content disputes" would be the correct venue for dispute resolution. "Comment about individual users" concerns general user conduct, rather than conduct relating to a specific article or category. Therefore, it would be, in my opinion, inappropriate to use the individual users section. If Mabbett still ignores consensus, one may personalise the dispute, moving either to "Comment about individual users" or to Mediation. -- Emsworth 14:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art Categorisation (again)

After spending some wonderful time here, I have started to wonder about the fundamentals of art categorisation. One should start at the top, I think, to get it right. In the Category:Arts you find cinema, architecture etc. while in Category:Art painting, photography and others are located. These artforms should be on the same level, I think. So I am contemplating to propose reorganising Category:Arts so the different artforms, including Category:Literature are to be found there. Every artform can have roughly the same subcategorisation. I'm working on a scheme that can incorporate all the good subcategories that are in existence. Do you think that is too much to take on for a new user like me? Pethan 19:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been doing some good work on categorising the arts.

From what I can tell, Category:Arts is all artistic categories and Category:Art is more 'visual art'. On that basis, Cinema, Architecture, Literature and Visual Art/Category:Art are correctly placed under Category:Arts and Painting, Photography, Sculpture are correctly placed under Visual Art/Category:Art.

There is an argument for flattening the categories, but it is not to be taken lightly (ie. needs discussion on any pages you can get people to show an interest.) For example, at the moment Performance art should come under Category:Art with the visual arts, because that it where it came from. On the other hand it is not so far removed from Category:Dance which I think is over with Category:Theatre under Category:Arts.

On the whole, I am not too unhappy with the placement of any of the above mentioned categories. However, there are certainly several anomalous categories lying around. -- Solipsist 20:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you agree with moving Category:Baroque art, Category:Gothic art and Category:Renaissance art to Category:Art history where Category:Contemporary art and Category:Modern art already are (or vice versa)? At least redundancies as with Category:Renaissance art should be solved. Pethan 20:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ahh now. Art periods and art movements, now that's a different can of worms. The problem there is that many of the periods and movements transition across Visual Art, Architecture, Music, Literature and more. Plus, they don't always correspond to the same dates. Minimalism is Art started well before Minimalism in Music, but it has hung around longer in Music. I've started a discussion about this at Category:Art, but it should probably be one level up at Category:Arts.

I've just been doing some categorising of artistic movements, and noticed that someone had split some of the movements by type, so we could have Minimalism (art)-Category:Art movements and Minimalism (music)-Category:Musical movements, both collected under Category:Cultural movements. Which shows promise for the trickier periods and movements. -- Solipsist 10:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art is art

Art is art. Visual art is visual art. Category_talk:Art_movements: "If you want a list of visual art please call it [a list of] visual art." Right now the categorization indicates that music is not art. This doesn't seem like the best plan to me. Hyacinth 21:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Category:Art is not Category:Arts, the former is arguably more correctly Category:Visual art but no one has plucked up the courage to move it (plus it introduces trouble with the Category:Conceptual artists etc). There is some discussion on these sorts of categorisation problems starting at Category talk:Art (although now it is starting to include distinctions against Architecture and Music, it might be better to move some of the discussion to Category talk:Arts). -- Solipsist 10:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Solipsist, has there been a decision made to move Category:Art into Category:Visual art or vice versa? I'm not sure what the outcome was on Category talk:Art. I have been working on cleaning up lots of these areas. There hasn't been a consensus to delete Category:Arts right? See User talk:Clubmarx for some problems I'm running into. Also, note, that Hyacinth is quoting himself above. help! Clubmarx 18:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture

I would really like some help on the Architecture front, would like to recategorise it under society or culture on the main page but have no idea how to go about it, the definition of architecture could also use a bit of life. My entry in Architectural History also seems a bit limp and abstract, any pointers?

Hello Chwe

Glad to help if I can. I'm not an expert in Architecture, but I certainly have an interest and have read a book or three. I hadn't really noticed that Architecture is under Technology on the Main Page Browse table. Obviously it is a topic with one foot in the Art camp and the other foot in the Technology and construction camp (to be honest I am not that concerned either way.) Moving it is likely to need some discussion.

One thing to support a move to Culture, is that the Library of Congress Classification for Architecture is at NA under Fine Arts. You might want to check some of the other classification systems listed on the main page. -- Solipsist

Anecdotally - a few years ago I was working in New York and noticed that the weekend edition of The New York Times has an 'Art and Architecture' section, which is appropriate for the city and contrasts nicely with London's The Times that has an 'Art and Literature' section.

I'm not exactly sure how you get the Main Page changed, but I am sure we can find out. Various bits of it are generated automatically. It will probably require the help of an admin of sysop editor. -- Solipsist 14:48, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've done some looking around. How to edit the templates which build the Main Page is discussed at Wikipedia:Editing_the_main_page. That shows that any discussion about changing the Browse section should be raised at Template talk:Wikipediatoc. -- Solipsist 15:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've started my proposals, thanks for the help. Chwe 21:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

..and took matters into my own hands. Have moved the page but forgot to say so in the edit summary. Chwe 00:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Carnatic music

Hi. I heeded some suggestions on parentheses. Anything else I can do to make the page better?--Siva 02:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) (I'll continue to comb through the page for literary faults.)

First impressions are good. Its an article that would be nice to get up to FAC status, if only to help address the perceived Western/US bias of the Main Page. It is still likely to be an uphill struggle, because by its very nature its an article that uses many terms that will be unfamiliar to western readers (technical articles can face the same barrier as you might have seen with DNA repair recently).

If you can find a public domain image that is relevant, that will be a big plus. The article is also likely to face objections that the Table of Contents is too long (although people argue about whether this is a fair objection). But for example sections such as The teaching of Carnatic music, could be correctly objected as not having enough content to split into two subsections. And blank sections such as Attitudes don't help.

If you can find an OGG format sample of some Carnatic music that would be great (even better if we had contrasting examples on the Hindustani_classical_music page.)

And of course, I suspect we can remove some more parentheses with a little restructuring. I'll try and find some time to look at it, but of course I don't have your knowledge of the subject. -- Solipsist 15:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PigsOnTheWing Reverting

Hey man. I see you are also having, ahem, discussions with user PigsOnTheWing. He just doesn't want to discuss edits. I'm not sure what to say. I wouldn't be so concerned if going back through his talk page wasn't a litany of people complaining at unnecessary and strange categorizations and getting terse or strange answers, if any. Maybe you have some ideas. Sorry if this is not a forum for complaining. I'm trying not to escalate this largely irrelevant matter. MDCore 20:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. I sought similar advice at User_talk:Lord_Emsworth#Advocation and Emsworth's reply was valuable. From what I can see User:Pigsonthewing makes a large number of useful edits (although perhaps a significant fraction are just stubborn reverts). It may just be that he doesn't have the time to answer every objection. I am now starting to see a few replies to the discussions on artist categorisation issues.

It might still be an idea to canvas some of his other objectors on User_talk:Pigsonthewing and check out whether to list a request on Wikipedia:Requests for comment under 'Comment about individual users'. Most of the problems listed there seem to be much more cut and dried, but Wikipedia is supposed to be built on consensus and PigsOnTheWing may be upsetting more people than he is helping.

At the end of the day accurate and useful information should persevere. -- Solipsist 21:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art categories

Thanks for the link to Category talk:Art. I'm taking a wiki-break at the moment, but I'll try to catch up and join in when I'm back for real. --Zigger 17:46, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Nay problem lad — I should probably take a Wiki-break myself. -- Solipsist 17:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I appreciate the fact that you asked me to step in on that edit war. Please don't hesitate to drop me a line if there's anything else that you fell I can help you with. - Lucky 6.9 00:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your considerate and considered words. Regards, Ancheta Wis 12:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

added the latin Bushism about the New World order Ancheta Wis 23:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] David Hume

re: Hume - I still disagree with his placement on the atheist list, but those who are for it seem far more adament about it than me, so I'm not too inclined to pursue it anymore. Maybe there could be an "ambiguous" section on the page? -- 05:29, 23 Aug 2004 Simoes

Actually, that's a good idea. I'd been thinking along similar lines to separate the celebrity atheists. -- Solipsist 06:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004

You may be interested in a last-ditch attempt to save User:Pgreenfinch's endangered article European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 which is on a subpage page of VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004. Because this is a subpage it may not be noticed by those scanning the regular VfD page. Recent votes to keep appear to be sock-puppets or people who have become users only to support this article. You may wish to add your vote or comments or both. Jallan 13:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian pyramids

Hi. Thanks for your feedback on the Egyptian pyramids article. I've changed the name as per your suggestion, and as soon as I figure out which copyright tag is appropriate I intend tagging the photographs associated with the article - I can't for the life of me see which tag is the right one for a "copyrighted, but owner says we can use it" situation. When I clean the article up a bit further I'll certainly put it up for peer review. I do however think it important to retain all the content within 1 article - as you identified in your comments, the strength of the article is its "compare & contrast" overview of a unique architectural phenomenon that evolved over a long period of time. --Gene_poole 04:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Howdy again. Concerning the copyright business on the photographs on Egyptian pyramids, the copyright owner basically said "no problemo" when I asked to use them; he didn't place any conditions on our use of the images, but asked nicely if we'd include links to his site. He did not specifically state any objection to their use by other third parties, and obviously the images themselves are already in the public domain. Would you read that as a "fair use" scenario? --Gene_poole 02:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] All my dead categories

Thanks for the message. I just want to ensure that a decent policy comes out of all this (if it hasn't already - I need to do seem reading on the various category pages, I've been offline a few days). Having now read the various discussions around GLBT etc I am now feeling a bit calmer: I am just miffed that I missed out on the chance to defend my babies.

I suppose it's just that I don't normally do things that rub people up the wrong way, and now here I am with 3 categories that people seem to feel are unacceptable. I hope I can chalk it up to categories being a fairly new phenomenon and perhaps I was slow to pick up how they should be used... but it is fairly embarrassing on the day Theresa Knott asks if I want to be nominated for adminship ;o) (I think I'll delay on that for a while...) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 22:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll just have to laugh it off. I admit I am rather drawn to the seedy/morbid side of life. To me, having a category of alcoholics was a way of me finding my spiritual brethren. With the emphasis on spirit. I was really hoping the category would take off and I'd find all these other characters I wouldn't otherwise have known about. I may go with a list/article thing - either starting or developing one. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 22:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail invitation

Hi. Congratulations, you win a Gmail invite! Could you email me (through Wikipedia email, if you wish) your email address and first and last names? I need to input those to give you the invitation. I will then put through the invitation when the Gmail site starts working again (it is down at the moment). - Mark 08:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Lawrie

I feel dreadful about the above article, I wish I had never listed it, I don't have a clue what to do with photographs, so I was not criticising your efforts, or a least I did not mean offence, just that poor old 'Carptrash' is going to wake up in America tomorrow morning, with everyone criticising his article and its all my fault - If I had a sword I would fall on it Giano 13:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou - people being nice makes me feel worse! Giano 14:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail invite

Howdy. I just got some more invites in - do you still want one? blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi Solipsist. Edits from 80.4.5.165 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 05:44, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)