Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/Tips and tricks

Discuss this story

Excellent guide, and happy to see Grainger up there as an example! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a fantastic article that I feel it should be made a stand-alone Wiki "how to" article. - kosboot (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably work it into essay(s) once I have made a couple additions. I think we need a more detailed restoration guide, with screenshots, and maybe a long-form copyright guide to link to for more detail. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Very nice article, and good tips & tricks. Small addition to the Dutch section: already uploaded to Commons:
Dutch heritage site RCE: 490,000 images (used 53,000 times onWiki); higher resolution will be uploaded this year;
Naturalis Biodiversity: 270,000 images uploaded to Commons; used 32,000 times;
Dutch Nationaal Archives: (as mentioned) 430,000 images uploaded to Commons, used 220,000 times;
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: 250,000 images uploaded to Commons; new batch will be uploaded to Commons later this year. Vysotsky (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: Thank you very much. I know for a fact that there's no way I can possibly mention every deserving archive, so I focused on the ones I've used. And even then probably missed a lot. I was constantly going back and adding more as I thought of them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all American newspapers before ~1970 are in the public domain, per c:Template:PD-US-no notice, as newspapers of this period almost never included copyright notices. If using newspapers.com, this is extremely easy to check; you literally just have to flip through and see if there's a notice or not. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, although the image reproduction quality of the average newspaper (after the end of the woodblock engraving era, anyway) will pose certain quality issues. Though you can sometimes link it back to a better copy by showing publication without notice, then grabbing the improved image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written article.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 00:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent guide. I think it's also worth mentioning that a lot of those image editing tips also apply to photographs one has taken oneself; judicious use of tools like that can help remove, for example, unsightly garbage in tourist areas. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Part of me feels like that should open up a whole conversation about verifiability/reliability in image sourcing, when we're discussing presumably-encyclopedic photography... FeRDNYC (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FeRDNYC: I would be interested in reading some of the discussions on that subject on Commons, and how it got its current plethora of templates to document the digital manipulation (restoration work, focus stacking, image stitching, etc.) that images may have experienced. Others, such as colour balances, contrast, exposure, etc. are probably less contentious but could still be viewed as lending to the question of verifiability. All of the manipulation I mentioned has been accepted on Commons, and our FPs have included examples as well. (Meanwhile, we have the dress to show how images right off a camera can lie) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Thank you so much for this! I'll definitely remember your instructions whenever I'll need to upload/find new images. I don't remember if you already mentioned it through the article, but may I ask you which are typically the best sources for current/very recent events, please? I was thinking about using Flickr to get pictures from World Youth Day 2023, but I don't know if it's the right move... Oltrepier (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier: I'd say Flickr would be easiest, given there's tools for import and the licenses are easy to check. Reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/Serendipity might be useful as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 17:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a delightful guide! I will note that Google Books, remarkably, is not a bad source for old images -- if an old book has been digitized and all images inside are in the public domain, it may be an option, especially when the subject is obscure enough. I found a photo of Marcellus E. Wright Sr. in the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography (published 1917) and was absolutely delighted, as I hadn't been able to find many other images of him (Colonial Williamsburg was very helpful, actually, there were a few pics of him with other architects in their archives). RexSueciae (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because one gets some secondary skills when one has 645 featured pictures.
— User:Adam Cuerden
Among them: humblebragging. 😉 FeRDNYC (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put a shout in for the Geograph UK & Ireland website, which has all images on a Creative Commons 2.0 licence. Also Geograph Channel Islands and Geograph Deutschland. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]