File talk:Lining up to use a boy.jpg
Your additions to File:Lining up to use a boy.jpg
[edit]
Can you point me toward some policy, guideline, or discussion which talks about adding information to image descriptions such as you did here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- You have added a category to the image after I left the message above, so I assume you have seen it. I don't think anyone would object to having your comment on the talk page, but as an image repository, I don't think that adding to the description a reference to a book where an image is used (but not as the source) is appropriate. I know you are likely to take this as some kind of provocation, but I have attempted to discuss the situation with you here and gotten no response. I will be removing your comment if you aren't willing to discuss it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Carbuncle, Can you point me toward some policy, guideline, or discussion which would prohibit adding additional information about sources where image was used. I personally also add info about publications using well known images also hosted on Commons. Often I add additional descriptions using other sources, so such additions serve role of the references. --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I can't, but neither am I the one performing the action here. The fact that you also do it does not make it something that is welcome here. I think I am asking a reasonable question. Do you have an answer to my question, or are you merely providing moral support for Fæ? That's fine if you are, but I'm looking for something more concrete than the opinions of those who watch Fæ's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Carbuncle, Can you point me toward some policy, guideline, or discussion which would prohibit adding additional information about sources where image was used. I personally also add info about publications using well known images also hosted on Commons. Often I add additional descriptions using other sources, so such additions serve role of the references. --Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fae, in relation to the image linked above, I think having the book is a good idea in order to give our reusers an extra line of defence in trusting our assessment of the PD status of our files. The file as we have it on Commons and the file from the other website are obviously the same image, but are different in appearance. Having a published book which references and discusses the image would make me, if I were to reuse it, more comfortable in known that the PD status is correct. This type of information obviously would belong on the file page, not the talk page, in order for it to be visible. Hope this helps. russavia (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why do we need a single URL source? It is PD-Old based on the original book (Sawaqub al-Manaquib) this is published in. A URL source establishing age is useful but not mandatory as it could very well be a personal scan from the original book. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- A bibliography is definitely needed, I completely agree with Russavia and, actually, I cannot understand the reason why did Delicious carbuncle point out this non-existing problem. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
