Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Ngw2

Not a license tag (despite its appearance and categorization), and hardly useful. Instead, it's rather confusing: "This image comes from www.ngw.nl, but is scanned from another source." So it doesn't come from www.ngw.nl, and what do we care where it doesn't come from. It goes on saying one should specify the real source, which is always the case, no need of a special template for that. –Tryphon^☂ 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Neither a license tag, nor a source tag. Could be misleading. Sv1xv (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep but change it to a source template and change the template to:

This image is available from Heraldry of the World website. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

or something similar. --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right the statement "This image comes from www.ngw.nl" threw me off.  Delete --Jarekt (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this template actually says that the image is not from ngw.nl. It's not a source template, it's a non-source template; and we don't need that. –Tryphon^☂ 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for files coming from ngw.nl, a license/source template already exists: Template:NGW. –Tryphon^☂ 14:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template after some discussion a few years ago. There are two types of images on the Heraldry of the World site; the ones that I made myself and thus have copyrights; these are covered by the Template:NGW. However, there are also thousands of images that are scanned from books etc. Not always these are copyright free. I do not want to be held responsible for misues (as has happened) and the template basically thus is a warning to the uploader to use the proper reference (the book(s) given on the page on www.ngw.nl where the image is taken from. If you look at the images on wikipedia with the ngw2 template [[1]], you will see that only very few refer to the original source as should be. And there are thousands (really !) that are taken from my site, but where I never bothered to add the template/or have not yet found them. So what to do ? Mass delete all those as no proper source and no permission of the copyright holder (publisher of the book) has been given ? Or keep the ngw2 template ? Actually I don't care... as long as I am not held responsible for misuse. As an example see [[2]], there are many things lacking and the source is the book series of Stadler as shown here : [[3]]. If you want Commons to be clean, the image should be deleted or revised. And the publisher, Angelsachsen Verlag, should be asked for permission. In this case it is a German arms, where the use is Gemeinfrei (free of use), but that does not mean it is free of copyrights to the author....Knorrepoes (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we want Commons to be clean :-) There are cloudy cases though, like when countries say that coats of arms are not copyrightable. I think there are 600-700 images using this tag alone. First... is it easy to tell which images on your site were made by yourself, and which were scanned? If so, I would augment {{NGW}} to have a description of how to tell, as well as making better link to your site (probably best to have a box, which embeds the creative commons license template) -- and you may want to specify yourself as the author. That would let people know which items are freely licensed, and which ones can't be taken. As for these others... if you scanned them, as opposed to taking them from other websites, then I think having {{Ngw2}} as a source template may be the correct way. Even better if there could be a short argument which would then construct the full link to your website. It should not look like a license template though, and all images using it should need a separate copyright tag. It would be best if the place you scanned them from was documented, at least on your site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, if you look at any page on my site you can see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It also syas "Use of the images in Wikipedia is allowed with reference to this site and/or the original source as mentioned on the site. Use template ngw for Dutch images and ngw2 for non-Dutch images and always add original source. It is not allowed to use texts of this site on Wikipedia without permission !". I think that already covers a lot of what you wanted. That nobody reads the disclaimer and/or does not pay attention to it when uploading is not my fault.... The original sources are listed on each page (unless I received the images by mail or similar, but 90% or so are known, that means over 40000). I have fixed url's, so iut is easy to make a proper page link. Of course feel free to rewrite the template to make it more clear. Nevertheless, there are thousands of coats of arms without proper license and a good cleanup is really needed...Knorrepoes (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This disclaimer was added in 2008, before that there was a more general text, without mentioning the templates, and quite a few images on commons are pre-2008... still in most cases the original sources are not mentioned. And, whether or not the images are free of copyright (and there are discussions whether it means free of use, or free of copyright), the original source should be credited.Knorrepoes (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Few things there though... first, you are aware that your images licensed here can be used by anyone under the terms of the CC license, and is not limited to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, correct? If that is fine, then the NGW template should ideally mention that (and the conditions) explicitly, so that users can see the conditions required to re-use it directly on this site. Second, is there a way to tell for a particular image on your site if it was made by you versus being scanned? That way the template can have that information as well, so it is obvious if the template was used on an image where it was not supposed to be. Great that the sources are mentioned on your page; that means links to that page should be preserved, and is a good rationale for keeping Ngw2 as a source template only, since it sounds like you are the source of the digitized versions at least. Ideally, yes, the original source info should also be added, but keeping the link to your page means that others can add that info gradually. For images which you did not make, many of them will probably have to be deleted, unless they are very old representations, or there is indications that they are not eligible for copyright at all (few countries seem to do that). Making Ngw2 a source template will help start that process; it is not a valid copyright license as it stands, as only the actual authors can declare a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched in commons on "www.ngw.nl" and got no less as 7000 hits, so the template(s) cover only a small part of what actually is taken from my site.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop this discussion hopefully for ever, as per Commons:Coats_of_Arms ALL images with the ngw2 template should be listed for mass deletion as well as the other images taken from my site, with exception of those with the Template:NGW as I have the copyright there. As there are so many, this probably needs a robot to do so.Knorrepoes (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Knorrepoes. Just a question, how many of the files currently tagged with {{Ngw2}} should really be tagged with {{Ngw}} and vice versa? (the last is not a criticism just wan't to know how much work is left to do). /Lokal_Profil 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have all my own images properly tagged with {{Ngw}}.Knorrepoes (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought... I believe {{Ngw2}} can actually be a useful source template. One solution would be to do the same as that which was done for {{Vector-images.com}} i.e. require it to take a valid license template as a parameter. But then I'm not sure how effective the {{Vector-images.com}} transition was and how many copyvios are hidden by an erroneous/false parameter. /Lokal_Profil 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I cleaned out the category, all files still at commons are PD because of local laws regarding coats of arm. The template should be changed, imho, to something like "This image comes from ngw.nl, but was originally scanned from somewhere else. Unless that source is in the public domain, or the image is according to local laws in the public domain, this image will be deleted." Kameraad Pjotr 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PD statements are not always correct, the Dutch one for example states that the images are not PD, unless you make them yourself. This is probaly true for more countries, but nobody actually reads it properly. Often the use is free, but there are still copyrights on the actual image. Knorrepoes (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The laws of some countries do appear to specify that copyright does not protect any versions of municipal or other governmental coats of arms... but yes, many don't, and treat each particular version as its own artistic work (the design is never copyrightable). If the Dutch tags are incorrect, that would be a separate deletion request though. But as long as there is a copyright tag other than this one on all images which use it, then it can be converted into a source tag. If any of the other tags turn out to be wrong, the images will be deleted at that point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per Kameraad Pjotr & Jarekt. Template is only source template. Mass deletion look unnecessary, since the category seems rather clean, but any image w/o a proper license will obviously be deleted. --DieBuche (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]