The recent diptych reminded me of this one, nominated before I had my current understanding of PD-Art. The frame is a 3D object, and thus this is a copyvio (PD-Art doesn't apply).
Well, he is a rather good editor who made a tremendous good job on this article and a shitloads of other good and wonderful art articles too - and among them like 40 Featured art articles - so, at least we can involve him in the discussion, no need to raise your voice like this. Sincerely doubt that article would be anything worth telling about without his and Victorias tremendous and high quality work. Wish there were many more editors like him who were so productive and knowledgeable in art like him. Prefer him way much more than all socks I have to show agf for all the time.
Hafspajen (
talk)
12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)reply
You refer to problems with other users. Sometimes the problem is that they look back at a discussion like this one, and they see a precedent being set for FPC not taking priority. In fact, however, FPC has always taken priority over article editors unless there were very, very, very, very, very good reasons for not using the FP version of an image. The rule is discussion happens here, not elsewhere. Anyone can participate, and inviting him to comment via his personal talk page would be fine (we have had canvassing discussions in the past, and it's usually a good idea to steer clear of such distractions). Now, to go back to my original comment, since the motivation of this nom was copyvio, we're talking about an issue that doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation. Either we fix it, or the image goes. I don't see a third alternative.
Samsara13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) And as for no article ownership, it's policy. Nuff said.reply
Comment – Cropping seems like a good idea, but I don't understand why there could be copyright violation of a 15th century work of art. – Editør (
talk)
12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Hafspajen: As the nomination currently stands, there is enough support for delisting the image, but not to replace it with two images as a set. (One can only replace an FP by first delisting it.)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus07:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Armbrust, my caffeine levels don't seem to be high enough yet as, like Haffy, I'm scratching my dizzy blonde head with a confused look on my face. Can I just say count my vote/comments to be whatever is needed to meet (procedural?) requirements?
SagaciousPhil -
Chat11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) except I'm mainly brunette but I'll count the blonde highlights! Reaches for coffee mug ...reply
I think Armbrust means: you
Sagaciousphil and Crisco need to say:Crop, upload as two images, replace as set not only delist, so he can proceed correctly. (Or maybe Crisco said it's fine with me already-...)
Hafspajen (
talk)
10:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Done In the case of
Metropolitan Museum of Art, due to the technical challenges of the gallery plug-in, it seemed most parsimonious to remove the image along with another one that presented the same licensing issue. If anyone wants to implement a different solution, feel free to.
Samsara03:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The recent diptych reminded me of this one, nominated before I had my current understanding of PD-Art. The frame is a 3D object, and thus this is a copyvio (PD-Art doesn't apply).
Well, he is a rather good editor who made a tremendous good job on this article and a shitloads of other good and wonderful art articles too - and among them like 40 Featured art articles - so, at least we can involve him in the discussion, no need to raise your voice like this. Sincerely doubt that article would be anything worth telling about without his and Victorias tremendous and high quality work. Wish there were many more editors like him who were so productive and knowledgeable in art like him. Prefer him way much more than all socks I have to show agf for all the time.
Hafspajen (
talk)
12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)reply
You refer to problems with other users. Sometimes the problem is that they look back at a discussion like this one, and they see a precedent being set for FPC not taking priority. In fact, however, FPC has always taken priority over article editors unless there were very, very, very, very, very good reasons for not using the FP version of an image. The rule is discussion happens here, not elsewhere. Anyone can participate, and inviting him to comment via his personal talk page would be fine (we have had canvassing discussions in the past, and it's usually a good idea to steer clear of such distractions). Now, to go back to my original comment, since the motivation of this nom was copyvio, we're talking about an issue that doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation. Either we fix it, or the image goes. I don't see a third alternative.
Samsara13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) And as for no article ownership, it's policy. Nuff said.reply
Comment – Cropping seems like a good idea, but I don't understand why there could be copyright violation of a 15th century work of art. – Editør (
talk)
12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Hafspajen: As the nomination currently stands, there is enough support for delisting the image, but not to replace it with two images as a set. (One can only replace an FP by first delisting it.)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus07:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Armbrust, my caffeine levels don't seem to be high enough yet as, like Haffy, I'm scratching my dizzy blonde head with a confused look on my face. Can I just say count my vote/comments to be whatever is needed to meet (procedural?) requirements?
SagaciousPhil -
Chat11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) except I'm mainly brunette but I'll count the blonde highlights! Reaches for coffee mug ...reply
I think Armbrust means: you
Sagaciousphil and Crisco need to say:Crop, upload as two images, replace as set not only delist, so he can proceed correctly. (Or maybe Crisco said it's fine with me already-...)
Hafspajen (
talk)
10:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Done In the case of
Metropolitan Museum of Art, due to the technical challenges of the gallery plug-in, it seemed most parsimonious to remove the image along with another one that presented the same licensing issue. If anyone wants to implement a different solution, feel free to.
Samsara03:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)reply