User talk:Durova/Landmark images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Articles or sections about photographs 2 Second opinion wanted 2.1 Commons FPC v. Wikipedia FPC 3 Another cleanup job for review 3.1 Request for comment 3.1.1 RFC feedback 4 The ones that stand out for me 5 Another cleanup 6 Wrong link? 7 Andrew Johnson 8 Homes found

[edit] Articles or sections about photographs

I think one good method of integrating such 'landmark' photographs more tightly into Wikipedia is to have captions, paragraphs, sections and even whole articles, about the photographs. See Wikipedia:Captions for ideas on how to write a good caption within an article. See Category:Photographs for articles on photographs. We also have articles on artworks, and on maps. See Category:Maps for the latter, such as Category:Old maps of the world. For articles with sections about photographs, see examples such as Neville Chamberlain for a treatment of the famous "peace in our time" photograph. For more on the history of the various Chamberlain images, see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 20#Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg and User:Carcharoth/Chamberlain image information. I also forgot to mention Category:Non-free historic images - while many of the free images can be sorted and dealt with on Commons, it is here on Wikipedia that the accompanying encyclopedic prose (with references) is best written. And the non-free historic ones can only be dealt with here, and not on Commons. Though it is worth remembering that the oldest non-free historic ones are quietly falling into the public domain as time goes by. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to avoid a wild-goose chase, due to the provisions of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, no additional historic works will enter the public domain under U.S. law between 1998 and 2019.—Twigboy (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can thank Sonny Bono for that. Fortunately we're also getting new images under public domain and copyleft from volunteers who document current events. Some of that donated material may be feature-worthy. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's only the ones where there was an identified author, I think. And I believe that non-US material entering the public domain outside the US, and first published outside the US, is still OK. It gets confusing though, so don't take my word for it. You also get people who donate images into the public domain, even press agencies sometimes. See Commons:Category:PD U.S. News & World Report and Commons:Template:PD-USNWR for pictures and details. Another good example is Image:Martin Luther King Jr NYWTS 4.jpg, which can be seen to be PD according to this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I studied writing in graduate school where a course in related law was required curriculum. Some of the nuances of image copyright are things I'd like to know better, but I'm up on the basics. Thanks, Durova^Charge! 16:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion wanted

Does the second version stand a chance? It's still soft focus. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• So many lines! I can't tell if the horizontals on the lower half are tilted, and I'm not sure if that horizontal in the upper half is a tilt or perspective distortion. Also, it's too bad the composition is the way it is—no place for Mr. Owens to run/fall into. WRT the issue you bring up, I think the focus, especially on the face, is of sufficient sharpness for a 1936 photograph. Given the date, the history, and the iconic nature and importance of the event being depicted, I would be completely happy supporting if it was only a matter of focus and sharpness. The composition and tilt (if it is a tilt) would be bigger issues for me. --Malachirality (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I think it does need a very slight ccw rotation, based on the verticals, but not as much as the horizontals would suggest. So a mixture of perspective and actual tilt, I guess. --Malachirality (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The line I rely on is the horizontal one at the balcony above his head. You may have a point there. I don't think the Wikipedia voters would give this the time of day, but the Commons crowd has been more accommodating. Regarding that, I've been watching two parallel nominations unfold. Very interested in getting informed commentary. Sec while I dig out the links. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons FPC v. Wikipedia FPC

Same image, nominated at both sites within a day's difference.

• Commons 14-0 support (as of now)
• Wikipedia 4-0-1 support with several dissatisfied comments, an attempt at color correction, and calls for more changes.

Insights? Durova^Charge! 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would actually say that the difference is not only unsurprising, but relatively mild. Not to bash Commons at all, but it's been my experience that many images overwhelming pass commons and then fail at en.wiki FPC. This is often not only a matter of difference in encyclopedic concerns (which is absent from Commons). Just take a look at the current nom page--my Dalai nom and most of Aitias' Commons FP noms. The main difference IMO is that english FPC emphasizes (almost requires) voters to consider the input and comments of others and to use these opinions to inform their own vote, while Commons seems much more up-or-down support/oppose. Tangentially, en.wiki also has stringent enc. considerations that preclude many of the "pretty" Commons FPs. Anyways, that's just my two cents. --Malachirality (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another cleanup job for review

Looks good. Good cropping and clean-up. One question. The original is here. Does it matter whether we are using the right or left hand image of the stereoscope? I would say, though, that this isn't particularly a landmark image. Nice encyclopedic image, but that wouldn't in my view be enough for featured picture candidates. It needs a little something extra. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a piece of social history. Documentary evidence of everyday life is a legitimate historical discipline. I'm thinking of seeing how the people on Commons feel about it. Durova^Charge! 14:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but if you are including those in landmark images, there will be lots of them. To my mind, landmark images refer to specific people and dates, but it's in your userspace for now, so I won't quibble. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

The orginal stereoscope description for this 1905 image says, The native mode of grinding coffee, Palestine The photo was distributed commercially for a United States audience. link to the Library of Congress file, link to the Library of Congress group description. I've tried to correlate this description to the Ottoman Empire administrative divisions of 1905 and really can't place it definitively anywhere. The description looks politically loaded by 2008 standards.

Suggested description would be "Women grinding coffee, Middle East, 1905. Original steroscope caption reads The native mode of grinding coffee, Palestine."

Basically I would like to see about getting this fine photograph of daily life featured, and want to avoid upsetting anyone's political sensitivities. Suggestions are welcome. Durova^Charge! 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two relevant maps I've found are here and here. Durova^Charge! 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC feedback

Please reply here.

• Palestine was what English speakers were invariably calling that region at that time, e.g. I've used this book as a source for a Palestine town: Rix, Herbert (1907). Tent and Testament: A Camping Tour in Palestine. New York, London: Scribner, iii. . Yes, there was no political entity by that name, but by that reasoning, there's no such place as New England either. Besides, at that time, Palestine was in the Near East, not the Middle East, which didn't exist yet then either. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My thought is to notate that as the historic 1905 wording with some sort of comment to the effect that it was a neutral statement in English at that time. Does that work for you? Durova^Charge! 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you are being over scrupulous; airbrush the photos but not the captions seems like a good rule of thumb, and I don't like trying to squeeze dated sources through a modern lens. I went to write an article on Mangarin Bay, and the only source I could find was 100 year old nautical guide. But we write with what we have, so I grudgingly reflected the source's expertize in matters such as "few supplies are to be had there." Of course, I stuck {{update}} on there with a last updated date of 1906. Anyway, what I wonder is when someone reads your editorialized caption in a 100 years, will it say more about us and our mores than the photo? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It may. Things are sensitive enough. Put it this way: maybe in another hundred years people will sing the second verse of "Camptown Races" again and just think it's silly and stupid. We haven't come that far yet. Durova^Charge! 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not sure what you're on about, and now I'm getting flashbacks to second grade choir. I've shared the RfC at Talk:Palestine so you'll hopefully get a wider response. I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don't re-title the caption, so you might as well just be true to the source material. - Kendrick7^talk 04:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • It's the kind of hot button that occasionally blows up in people's faces. If that's not such a big deal in this instance, then thank you very much for setting me at ease. I think it's a fine historic photo, maybe feature-worthy, and I wouldn't want a political issue to derail the nomination. BTW right now it's being used in history of coffee. Do you think it would be appropriate in any Palestine-related articles? Cheers, Durova^Charge! 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I see no problem with either "native" or "Palestinian". (It is sometimes suggested that only Jews refered to themselves as Palestinian, as best I can tell that is not the case). The date (1905) is important since that pre-dates the catastrophic changes that came to the region. A problem arises if you label the subject "Arab" when there was a (rather small) proportion of Jews present at that date. Visitors were sometimes disproportionately interested in the latter community, so it's entirely possible these two are native, Palestinian and Jewish. PR^talk 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the original caption works. I don't see anything weird about calling someone a native, but maybe that's cause we're proud of being natives where I live. (Unfortunately, I'm actually a transplant, but this is home.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not so much native as Palestine. Durova^Charge! 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't have a problem with that either. Nice work on these images, btw. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 13:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

RFC close:

• Thanks for the feedback. The image is at FPC on Wikipedia and Commons and getting positive responses. Durova^Charge! 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ones that stand out for me

The following are (as of 31 December 2007), the pics and media that I consider "landmark" (well, I guess what I'm really saying is that these ones are of specific, rather than general, historic interest). Many of the others are of interest, but these are what I see as the cream of the crop:

• Image:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg - agreed!
• Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg - cleaned, on PPR
• Image:1stPhotoFromSpace.jpg (beware trying to clean this up - the poor quality is part of the historic value)
• Image:Nimitz missouri.jpg - too small
• Image:Federal Ironclad GALENA 1862 lowres.png - I can't explain the cutout
• Image:Marche sel.jpg - out of focus
• Image:Benoist xiv.jpg - too small

Some of the others are great as well. I've started putting them in articles. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The first photo from space went down in flames at PPR. We need a larger version to even have a change. I might go to work on the Nimitz pic today. Happy New Year. :) Durova^Charge! 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It did? I can't find that discussion anywhere. Happy New Yesr to you too! Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out all the others and added my notes. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The cutout? The magnification box, do you mean? The original lacks that. You could submit both. Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Could you link me to the original? For now I've nominated a different pic at Wikipedia: a petri dish. Commons FPC is nearly a week behind on its discussion closures and I don't want to be obnoxious by running too many nominations at once. Thanks so much for your input. BTW even though it isn't landmark I like the shot of the mosquito. Think it looks good enough close up to stand a chance? The caption seems adequate. Durova^Charge! 08:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The originals are here. They are already linked from the image page. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another cleanup

No matter what I do this is going to be very soft focus, but considering it's over 100 years old and rather dramatic...think it's worth a try? Durova^Charge! 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The great thing about this pic, in my opinion, is the guy in the background bending sideways to get a better view... I generally don't like pictures like this, as I get to thinking too much about what choices the guy about to die made (or what choices others made) that led to his story ending this way. But this is a dramatic picture, there is no doubt about that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the fellow bending sideways. I wish the man on the far left hadn't been cut off. Would have drawn in the viewer more effectively to have someone standing nearby. I don't like this type of scene either and part of what makes it palatable is that it's over 100 years old. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong link?

The Library of Congress link you have provided goes to a search form for a specific collection. Did you mean to link to the general LoC image search here instead? Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Johnson

I've re-upped a newer version here: Image:Andrew johnson2.png

let me know what you think. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure it's ready for showtime. Try peer review. Durova^Charge! 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homes found

The King picture and B-25 tanks are now both in articles. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) Durova^Charge! 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, the King pic wasn't my doing. They're not going to get to Featured Pictures if they aren't 'encyclopedic' :) The Air Guardsman on the radio-tower is also homed, at Inspection. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)