User talk:Lecen/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Favor

Você faria o favor para mim de colocar para votação em destaque o anexo List of number-one albums of 2007 (Japan)?

É que você é mais acostumado com a wiki-en. Obrigado. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We can only submit two candidature??? Bruno Ishiai (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Template

I started trying to fix a template that you are repeating in the entire Pedro II suite of articles, and got stalled because the title is part of the box. See Template:Pedro II of Brazil; something like that should be in every article as a template, so I don't have to repair the Exile and death article individually in each other article. See the templates at the bottom of Samuel Johnson and Tourette syndrome. This doesn't affect your FAC, but is something that will make editing easier. (If you can't fix that template, let me know, and I'll db-author delete it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Astynax was the one who created it, I'll ask him to fix that. Could you move the other Pedro II's article too as I requested in the FAC? --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have to be an admin to move them (I'm not an admin)-- I would do it for you anyway, but much more efficient would be to create one template, as in Johnson or TS, so you don't have to change it in every article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Samuel Johnson; the heading is general, and it's included in every Samuel Johnson article, so when one article changes names, you don't have to edit every article in the suite-- only make one change in the template. I don't know how to fix Template:Pedro II of Brazil for incorporation into every article, because Asyntax set it up with a title that changes according to the article. If we can set up a correct template, you only have to correct the names once, then add the template to every article-- less work, and more correct, and better for future expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

I see Pedro II of Brazil is at FAC. I apologize for not getting back to it yet—I've been too busy in real life to actually contribute properly and have only been doing some mindless work around here :) Would you still like my feedback? Sorry... : Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would-- there are two Pedros at FAC that need independent review, and with Karanacs offline, I'll have to close them myself, so I want to be sure there's solid consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll make Sandy's words my own. Any extra help is always welcome, Vascencellos. However, I'd like to request you, as a favor, that if you really want to do that, do it. This is the second or third time you tell me that you will review it. I am not complaining, but I need a review from top to bottom. Regards.

Sandy, what does you consider "independent" and "solid consensus"? Pedro II's article has 4 editors who support it and Pedro Álvares Cabral has 6 editors who support it and 1 neutral. None of them have any editor who is opposing their nomination. This is not a criticism to you, it's really a doubt I have. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked today, but the last time I did look, there were several supports from reviewers I'm not familiar with. Since I will have to close these myself, in Karanacs' absence, I need more than the usual allowance for doubt, so that there can be no criticism that I may have a COI on your noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am sorry about getting sidetracked. I am returning to Pedro II now. Will try to take a look at hte other one if I get a chance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, Lecen. I have moved the comments to the correct FAC. ;) Moisejp (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy

I have responded on the FAC's review page, and the following was posted to the FAC delegates:

I may be wrong, but the last Cabral image review is starting to feel like an impasse (maybe that's just frustration, though). As it is an editor's job to provide support for his/her edits, I don't know if it is expected of me, as one of the noms, to recruit other image reviews. I've tried to respond to the points made, though perhaps not as clearly or precisely as required. If other input is needed, I don't know of anyone experienced in reviewing images to ask, so I'll have to sit back and watch this portion of the process. If I should be trying to get more people to comment, let me know.

It would be sad to see images blanked, but if removal is what is required to resolve this, even though I believe it would be without basis, I'm not going to curl up and die if someone goes ahead and deletes images from the article. I'm going to cc the co-nom and Karanacs and step back from this particular issue. As I said, it's probably best for me to just watch how this plays out and try to trick my aged neurons into learning something. • Astynax ^talk 06:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco

I should be able to look at it early next week; my next one on my 'to review' list just had to be pushed back so there's an opening for me to read through this one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

	The Brazilian Barnstar of National Merit
	Thank you for all your work on Brazilian history articles. Spongie555 (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
	this WikiAward was given to Lecen by Spongie555 (talk) on 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I really enjoy the Brazilian empire article you have expanded. Hope to see another GA about the brazilian empire like Pedro I article or something interesting. Spongie555 (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I do work alot with images so I know a good amount. Spongie555 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    Not from what I've seen-- I've encountered you promoting "Valued" pictures (which are anything but, in an entirely useless process that no one cares about except those scoring points for WP:WIKICUP and has no oversight) that don't come close to satisfying our image policy. I wish you'd stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

    • They look good and should meet image rules except this one is being questioned by templete someone but on it,File:Bernardelli - Monumento a Cabral.jpg. Spongie555 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Spongie

Lecen, noticed on my watchlist; sorry, but the Spongie editor is fairly new, and has no clue on image policy. His review won't be helpful at FAC. See my response to Asytnax on my talk about images at FAC. When I saw what Spongie was doing at WP:Valued pictures (which aren't), I tried to encourage knowlegeable reviewers to get involved there, but the feedback was that the entire process is such a joke that they won't even go there because no one even pays attention to it. In spite of what a Valued picture claims to be, there is no one checking them for image policy compliance, so it's basically a feel-good joke that no one pays attention to. It's being used mostly for people to score reward culture points at WP:WIKICUP. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

VP has improved since you last saw it. More people use it and Tony doesn't use it that much as he did so no one uses it for wikicup points. We do check the images. Spongie555 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no one there who has a notion about image use policy, so I don't know what you think you're checking, but it's not thorough copyright checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you find an example of any image concerns on VP because all of them are public domain last time I check them. Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image review at FAC (Pedro Álvares Cabral)

I will take a shot at it in the coming week, but from a glance at it, some images still seem to give me the same concerns as the other FAC: publication status/dates (to help determine US copyrights). Please bear with it for the time being, but if you can find the publication information (if the works have been published) and put them on the image pages, that would help things flow even more smoothly. Sorry for the delay. Jappalang (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say by "Impossible." US copyright laws for the periods before 1987 are primarily driven by publication, not by the death of the authors. For the case of File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg, the date 1800s is suspect because Roque Gameiro lived from 1864 to 1935. A date of 1800s would mean that the work could be from 1814 before his birth. Therefore, not knowing the date, this work if published in 1930 would mean that we have to consider the restoration of US copyrights by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which would grant the work a US copyright of 95 years => 1930 + 95 + 1 = 2026 would be the year US copyright has elapsed. I am fairly certain the miniature is not an unpublished work because such pieces of art are primarily to decorate the fronts of tomes of information. As mentioned previously, perhaps it will do you well to read up on US copyrights with the charts at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm as reference. Jappalang (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to believe that you are refusing to listen (read) what has been explained to you before. I am very short on time, (busy with my work) and I would not like to waste what time I can make productive efforts to this project by explaining the same things over and over again to certain people.

• Commons require uploaded items to be public domain in both US and its country of origin.
• Materials first published in the US only need to consider its copyright status in US since that is its country of origin.
• Items not first published in the US are considered foreign works and have to be public domain in their country of origin.
• If items are published before 1977, they follow the US laws for items that are published before then to determine their copyright status in the US. They do not follow the 70-year pma ruling unless they are published during 1977–2003 (with copyright notices) or are unpublished before 2003.

I believe I have made this very clear. "Would I have to prove that a medieval painting was published before 1921": Either prove that it was published before 1923, or prove that it was never published before 2003 and the artist died more than 70 years ago, or by whatever means qualify it for public domain in US by the chart I have provided you with. Jappalang (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the tone of your conveyances come across to me as pure gripes. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Try using that sort of rationale at FAC ("other FAs do the same thing!") and see what happens. Just because there are violations in those articles does not mean others have to fix them or let your nomination do the same.

It is not impossible to prove the work was unpublished. It can be hard, but not much harder than to find its publication. If there is confirmation (via books, journals) that there is only one copy of the work ever made (and the author never offered to make another copy), then it cannot be a published work per US law (the offer to distribute copies). Works can only be published with the correct authority (copyright owner). His or her heirs can exercise their right to authorize publication during the 70-year protection after the author's death. Once that period is past, reproductions of that work are no longer considered publications. The key is to show that the work was published before 1923 or after 1977 because that period (1923–1977) bestows 95-year copyright protection for first publications. Generally, any non-US work whose author died earlier than 1850 would face this whole issue (since the author's heirs would also likely be dead before 1923 to authorize any publication). Jappalang (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I am a bit busy at the moment. I just want to let you know I will get back to this as soon as possible. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

commons:Template:PD-Brazil-media is not the license we should be using for Brazilian paintings. The license is meant for audiovisual and photographic works, which is defined in the law as films, videos, and photographs. Paintings do not fall into that category. As such, for Brazilian paintings, {{PD-old}} is the template that should be used if they are in Brazilian public domain.

Now in regards to US copyrights (for foreign works):

• For any work first published before 1923,
  • {{PD-1923}}

• If the author died before 1852:
  • and the work was unpublished before 1923, {{PD-old}}

• If the author died before 1926:
  • and the work was registered with the US Copyrights office and renewed, then sorry it is copyrighted for 95 years since registration.
  • and the work was registered with the US Copyrights office but not renewed, then {{PD-US-not-renewed}}.
  • and the work was first published between 1923 and 1977 without registration with US Copyrights office, commons:Template:PD-1996.
  • and the work was first published after 1977, then commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished or {{PD-old}}

• If the author died after 1926, but before 1939:
  • and the work was first published between 1923 and 1977 (with or without registration with the US Copyrights office), then sorry it is copyrighted for 95 years since publishing.
  • and the work was first published after 1978, then {{PD-old}}.

Generally, the heirs in most countries outside the US have 70 years to exercise their ancestor's reproduction/economic rights; thus, if an unpublished work was published in that period of time, it would be considered first publication; hence my asking of when those works whose artists died later than 1925, such as File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg, is first published is for concern that the artist or his heirs might have first published the work during 1923 to 1977, which brings up the URAA complication (giving the work 95 years of copyright in the US).

Note that {{PD-Art}} is used for photographs that you have not taken yourself. PD-Art is used to ignore the law in which certain countries (such as United Kingdom) allows photographs of 2-D art to be copyrighted. The Wikimedia Foundation relies on the Bridgeman vs Corel ruling to ignore that law. However, the copyrights (US and country of origin) of the subject (the artwork) still has to comply with Wikipedia or Commons policies.

If both US and country of origin befits PD-old (the work was never published or first published after 1977, and the author has now been dead more than 70 years), we can just use one PD-old.

Regardless, see how I have tagged and added information to support the tags in File:Oscar Pereira da Silva - Desembarque de Pedro Álvares Cabral em Porto Seguro em 1500.jpg and File:Pedro Alvares Cabral fleet.jpg.

In my research for File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg, I have run into a funny situation that I hope you can help resolve. Ignoring all that had been said previously about this image, I am puzzled to see that it was attributed by a college as being published in Livro das Armadas.[1] That would mean that Roque Gameiro (1864-1935) could not be the author since the Livro is published in 1568. Is this college reliable (or accurate even)?

If the college is mistaken and Gameiro is the author, could this work have been published in A descoberta do Brasil (1900), com illustrações de Roque Gameiro, cartas, mappas, fac-similes de documentos. Exgotado?[2] The 1908 version does not have the illustrations, so I am unable to verify this. Do you have a way to check the 1900 version of A descoberta do Brasil (at a library or such)? Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With the various conflicting information, I am having this feeling it is not a late 19th century work. This is a likely scenario: Gameiro created and published this work in 1923. It could be a collage: Cabral's portrait could be from the late 19th century, and the coat of arms are those printed in earlier 1922 volume (II) of História da colonização portuguesa do Brasil (see http://purl.pt/162/1/brasil/08_bib_iconografica_capitaes.html). Samples of volume II of História da colonização portuguesa do Brasil are available at http://www.dbd.puc-rio.br/brasil500anos/asobras.html, and the art style on page 143 is similar with the miniature, suggesting that Gameiro created original works for the 3 volumes. Thus, the miniature is a 1923 work with elements from 1922 and possibly late 19th century. See http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2919/analysisofminiature.jpg for a graphical analysis.

Since Gameiro created the entire piece (albeit piecing them from several older pieces), it can be construed as a creative work of art (arrangement and colour choice). This collage was then reprinted in the 1979 Livro das Armadas, which was an exact reproduction of the original 66-page 1568 manuscript (there are no other reprints between 1568 and 1979). The 1979 version, however, has 22 pages of modern material inserted at the beginning.[3][4] This is just a conjecture, but it seems to make sense of the pieces of information presented.

I think the only way we can confirm the publication date of this work is by checking Volume II (1922) and III (1923) of História da colonização portuguesa do Brasil, or the 1979 and 1568 versions of Livro das Armadas. Unfortunately, without that confirmation, the verifiable sources currently available points to a first publishing of 1923 (thus still under US copyright). Jappalang (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Gameiro was hired as the art director of pt:História da Colonização Portuguesa do Brasil.[5] As I said above, it was but a conjecture. Regardless, without checking the actual publications, we do not know if first publication of the miniature (a collage of portrait and coat of arms) was 1568, 1900, or 1923. Do you have access to the Livro das Armadas (1979 version)? I believe it would clearly state which of its contents are modern and which are from 1568. Jappalang (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rethinking the entire thing, it seems Gameiro is not the author (he cannot possibly have drawn this if it was printed in the Livro das Armadas). Jappalang (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not so much concerned about the other image as this miniature. However, if it is convenient, could you translate the following passage from http://revistadiscenteppghis.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/paulo-roberto-menezes-sociedade-imagem-e-biografia-na-litografia-de-sebastiao-sisson.pdf?

Em dois outros anúncios do mesmo periódico podemos perceber esta ponte entre passado e presente feita a través da imagem. Em 16 de janeiro de 1859 anunciava-se: No seguinte domingo daremos o retrato da jovem formosa Sra. Isabel Princesa Imperial do Brasil. Esta obra publica-se três vezes por mês, “Publicou-se o 1º número do Universo Ilustrado de 1859, apresentando um belo retrato litografado de Pedro Álvares Cabral - Descobridor do Brasil. e cada número conta de uma grande jornal e uma estampa primorosamente litografada.
Já em 1º de fevereiro do mesmo ano tínhamos:
Publicou-se
O 2º. Número do Universo Ilustrado de 1859, apresentando o retrato litografado da jovem Princesa Isabel do Brasil, no 1º número publicou-se o retrato de Pedro Álvares Cabral, descobridor do Brasil, e no 3º número será publicado o retrato de Bocaje (...), etc, etc. Continua-se a receber assinaturas para esta obra em casa do editor A.J. Ferreira Silva, Rua da quitanda 190.

It might have relevance to File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png. Any other pertinent information about this would also help.

To reiterate, the status of the miniature is concerning: it might still be copyrighted in the US depending on which sources we are to believe.

Statements

• 1969: Grandes Personagens da Nossa História says it is an "illumninated manuscript from Livro das Armadas.
• 2003: Edwardo Bruno says it is a 19th century miniature
• 2005: Nossa História (presumably a different publication/publisher from the 1969 work) says it is an "allegory by Roque Gameiro", a reproduction of the one in História da Colonização Portuguesa (1923)

Facts

• 1568: Livro das Armadas aka Memoria das Armadas was published.
• 1923: Volume III of História da Colonização Portuguesa, of which Roque Gameiro was the art director, was published.[6]
• 1979: A reproduction (the first) of Memoria das Armadas was printed to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Portugal's exploratory achievements (the year the fleet set off); supposedly, the modern material inserted is all text, so all pictures are facsimiles of the original.[7][8]

Possible scenarios:

1. The miniature was in the Livro; Gameiro copied it into História to decorate the book. Bruno made a mistake.
2. Gameiro created the miniature for História. Grandes Personagens and Bruno made mistakes.
3. The miniature is a 19th century painting. Both Nossa História and Grandes Personagens are wrong.
4. Cabral's portrait is 19th century, and Gameiro used it in his miniature for História. The miniature is still a 1923 work. Bruno and Nossa História are thus correct; Grandes Personagens is wrong.

I am unable to find a solution that reconciles all three statements. At least one of them is wrong. The question is which. The best (and easiest) way to verify the status of the miniature would be to check Memoria das Armadas, since if the art was a 1568 product, then the other statements do not matter anymore. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for information to flesh out the origins of the lithograph, but no worries there. Like I said, the only concern left is the miniature: it requires confirmation on whether it was first published before 1923 or not. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cabral

I responded, but I think Kablammo also wants you to respond directly. I do not think there is any problem, they just want to make sure that we didn't copy the words written by other people. • Astynax ^talk 20:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Cabral is now passed. The bot will likely update its page tonight. Congratulations, though it certainly was a rough road. • Astynax ^talk 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Paranhos

The reviewer at the Paranhos GA has a question about the photo of Montevideo. It should be old enough, but I was wondering if a copy is on the Portuguese or Spanish Wikis that might show more information. Or maybe the licensing just needs to be changed like for some of the other Uruguayan photographs. • Astynax ^talk 04:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Get healthy soon! I have only had time to do a bit of clean-up on some other articles, but I still plan to go over Teresa Cristina when I have an unbroken chunk of time. I hope you recover quickly. • Astynax ^talk 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Party

Understood. And there's certainly no rush to create those articles (or perhaps one article covering all three? e.g. Liberal Party (Brazil, historical)), though it should be done eventually. Still, there are two problems. First, Liberal Party leads nowhere. I suggest either delinking or linking to an article that will eventually exist. Second, Category:Liberal Party (Brazil) politicians is for a party that existed from 1985 to 2006. Since neither the Viscount of Rio Branco nor Saraiva belonged to this party, they don't belong in the category, either. The best way forward there is to create a category for the historical party (or parties, depending on how you choose to structure this). - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)