User talk:VAwebteam

==References==
<references/>

You must also be editing the article and not just a section of the article in order to see your changes when you click "Show preview," otherwise the References section is not displayed … I remember that it took me a while to figure that out when I was still a nugget.

See

BTW, I'm looking at a souvenir that I purchased in your gift shop during my 1983 honeymoon trip "even as we speak" … the ex-spousal unit may be just a distant and infrequent memory now, but that whimsical trinket has been a daily reminder of my first visit to London for nearly a quarter of a century. :-)

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to

There is also debate about where your links belong, in References or External links ... since Fig leaf had been used as an example, I also decided to use it as an example of a proper citation/reference for your benefit, and ended up doing some Major Surgery on the article, which I documented on its Talk page ... here is what I added for VAM, and you can use this as a template:

 {{cite web
  |url= http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/sculpture/stories/david/index.html
  |title= David's Fig Leaf
  |publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]]
  |accessdate= 2007-05-29 }}

This generates: "David's Fig Leaf". Victoria and Albert Museum. Retrieved 2007-05-29.

After further consideration, since your pages don't have authors, dates, or any of the other information that would provide values for the optional fields, then these should be the only fields that you need to use:

• |title= — should be the same as the <TITLE> field in the HTML source code for the referenced page
• |publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]] — should always be identical to this
• |accessdate= — should be the date that you add the template and verify that the link is correct

I recommend the use of ISO 8601 date/time format so that the MediaWiki software can automagically link it to the appropriate date-related articles, … "29th of March, 2007" and "05/29/07" not good ways to enter the date ... I have seen Some Other Editors add dates formatted like that, and I always change them to ISO 8601 format!

My personal opinion is that if you can find an appropriate place to add a ref, then do it that way, otherwise putting it in External links is OK … IMHO, the other editor used the wrong location for their example, so I moved it to where I thought it made more sense, i.e., following the sentence, "During the Hellenistic period, the Renaissance and other periods, nudity was a common feature in art.^[1]" —68.239.79.82 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "show" to open contents.

I would just add, what may not have been clear from the discussions above & on the other page, that adding content to articles, as opposed to links, is much less likely to cause problems, and is generally preferable. There may be licensing issues - you can't just plonk down V&A content & say 'I'm from the V&A, so its ok'. I'm no expert on the procedures we have, but I'm sure others can help. But in general, under

Indeed. If there is useful content in the linked item, it is better to add that useful content to the article and then use the link as a reference for it. The V&A would certainly count as a

personal speculation or interpretation. Tyrenius 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, VAwebteam … since it will soon disappear from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page during the next backup/purge of inactive issues, I have made an archive copy of the recent discussion regarding your account, just in case you need to refer to it in the future … I have also taken the liberty of creating an initial User page for you (so your username will no longer be redlinked), with convenience links for contacting Some Other Editors who have offered their assistance, and links to a few subpages that I have created in order to help you get started as a responsible contributor to Wikipedia … Happy Editing! —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: 1) There is no equivalent of Category:Collection of the British Museum for articles on specific objects - I see Tipu's Tiger, the Three Graces and the Ardabil Carpet have articles, and no doubt there are others.

2) Applied arts are not my area, but I think ceramics, especially non-uk, metalwork, textiles, and Asian art are all areas where WP is not strong - Indian art coverage is certainly very weak.

3) Because of a peculiarity in American copyright law, WP is extremely well-off for photos of 2-dimensional works of art over a 100 years old, which are treated as not-copyrightable, but not for photos of 3-dimensional works, where photos remain copyrightable. So many articles on 3-D areas are unillustrated, and links to good photos on the V&A site are much more acceptable than they would be for paintings etc.

4) The main V&A article is very incomplete on the collections. Some areas are well covered, others have only 1 line.

Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 June 2007

Indeed ... that's exactly the kind of thing that motivated me to suggest that we should help VAwebteam become an autonomous, responsible contributor (their collection of images must be Totally Awesome) ... something to add to the "project" To Do list (or create another one) would be a list of articles that would benefit from images uploaded from the V&A website ... why don't you create a sandbox with a starter list, and maybe find one or two in their existing articles ... no need to upload and insert them yourself; just provide URLs for the pages where they can be found (like http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/british_galls/audio_talk_art/three_graces/index.html and http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/object_stories/ardabil/index.html for the carpet.) —72.75.70.147 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wrought iron is, like virtually all metalwork articles I've seen, an art-history-free zone. Category:Genres of Indian art is very short of articles & most of them are very poor. Indian sculpture is barely present. Category:Chinese porcelain is certainly better, but still full of stubs. Finding the gaps in WP's coverage of applied art is not the problem, so I don't think I need to overload them with great lists. But if they aren't used to the categories, that is the best way to search an area - it's easy to pick up how to use them. I suspect they (he/she) has enough lined up for the present! Johnbod 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ... With my assistance,

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

• Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

• Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I see you're working on the To Do list ... in your edits, you should always leave an Edit summary (that little text window above the Save page button), even when it's a minor cosmetic edit ... see my Contribs for an example, and compare with yours (click User conributions in the toolbox menu underneath the search dialog box on the left of the screen. :-) —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, have added them since getting your tip.VAwebteam 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not in a position to contribute to this because of other commitments. However, I would make the point that it is always preferable to add article content and use the external link as a reference with an inline citation per the "Guide to referencing" above on this page. Tyrenius 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note to me. I've replied on my talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done several, & the rest are probably ok. Johnbod 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help. VAwebteam 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ardabil Carpet image you uploaded significantly enhances the article, great addition. — Athaenara ✉ 12:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Grasshopper, you are doing Quite Well! :-) ... I have been observing your activities from the shadows, but not actively participating ... you have truly become a Responsible Contributor. —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh shucks. I've had good guidance, just hope I don't let you down! Thank you! VAwebteam 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have listed this image as both public domain and copyrighted. This is not possible. Please clarify the status of this image before someone gets it deleted. Rmhermen 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning about deletion. I'd really appreciate some advice on this. I put this image down as being in the public domain because the artist died over 100 years ago and anyone could walk into the V&A and take a picture of this object and use it on wikipedia. However, this image was taken by the V&A's photostudio and if someone wanted to use it for a commercial publication or similar they would need to contact the V&A's picture library regarding permission for usage BUT for the purposes of illustrating wikipedia articles and anyone wanting to use it in their research etc it's ok to use it and the V&A's director has given his permission to do so. The image was taken from the V&A website so could be added to wikipedia by any member of the public, but as I work on the V&A's website I know a little bit about the history of the images and thought it best to add the copyright symbol. Does this make sense? By contributing these images to wikipedia the V&A is assuming good faith from wikipedia's users. Perhaps I could drop the copyright symbol and add a note in the summary for people to contact the picture library if they want better quality images for commercial usage? VAwebteam 08:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I have removed the copyright symbols from the images this applies to and hope this means they won't be deleted. VAwebteam 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've had a brusque introduction to Wikipedia, I see, but I hope you and the V&A team aren't put off by the resentment so confidently expressed here of educated, informed opinion. The way to get information you know to be correct and enlightening into Wikipedia articles is through ventriloquism: find a published statement from a "reputable source" (this, too, can bring problems when "reputable" is judged by a high-school senior in Idaho), work it into the article, and note your source in a footnote. Even professional commonplaces are read as "Original Research" by officious Wikipedians who've never had any contact with the field. If you get into a tangle with the trogs, call on me.

Photos you load to Wikipedia need to be your own, not official V&A photos, for which there are always copyright issues. Anything you can shoot from the English furniture or the Jones Collection (golly, or the Wallace Collection!) may serve to build an article upon: Ince and Mayhew David Roentgen etc etc. Be in touch. --Wetman 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your image additions. However, you must know that wikipedia does not accept copyrighted photos where freely licensed images could be created. I have noticed that you have uploaded several images under a fair use rationale, but this is not acceptable where the photos are replaceable--this includes images of objects currently on display in your museum. If you would like to add these photos to the articles, they must be licensed under a free license that allows commercial use and modification by any party. I am going to be flagging your previously uploaded photos as replaceable fair use, and they will be deleted within a week if you do not alter the license. You are of course welcome to only upload low-resolution images under a free license and include a link to a higher-resolution, copyrighted image. Calliopejen1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read

WP:NONFREE for a primer on our non-free content policies. Calliopejen1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have flagged Image:Chafingdish.jpg, Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg, Image:Mazer.jpg, Image:Chocolatepot.jpg, Image:Chrismatory.jpg, Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg, Image:Stsebastian.jpg, and Image:Lustreware.jpg as replaceable fair use. Calliopejen1 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grasshopper ... if the images have a copyright problem, then just have a link to the Victoria and Albert Museum page that contains the image ... either a cited reference or an external link will do ... this editor (Calliopejen1, apparently knowledgeable in the area of Fashion design) has not seen the history of your COI intervention a few months ago, so rather than confront this copyright thing directly, its best to just circumvent the problem with links instead of images. <Heavy Sigh!> Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally you should go through whatever hoops you need to do to document the V&A permission to use a low res version for WP purposes, but they have to be aware that anything on WP is effectively available for anyone to use under the GNwhatever license. So links are certainly easiest. Johnbod 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on being late to respond to this issue. I've been talking to colleagues at the V&A about the use of the V&A's images. They are still very keen for them to be used on wikipedia but not happy about them being commercially available (hence the nonfree copyright tag). The V&A is very keen to share their images for non-commercial use as you will see from the Search the Collections section on their site. There are a few restrictions on using these images laid out on Use of Standard Web Images, is there a copyright tag in wikipedia that applies? Obviously these images were taken in a photo studio and any photographs taken in the galleries (permissable under a free license) would be taken through glass and therefore inferior quality.

Also, I've been reading on various discussion pages about the use of images to illustrate an article. I used an image of the Ardabil carpet to illustrate the article of the same name....does this fit under the nonfree license as the V&A owns this carpet and it's one of a kind? Any advice gratefully received. I know copyright is a complete minefield having dealt with it on the V&A's website for many years. VAwebteam 10:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area Far Beyond my expertise ... sorry I can't be more helpful. —72.75.74.236 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just to let you know, I removed the copyright sign on the nice V&A image here, & changed the licensing on the picture itself to "pd-old". I think I have mentioned before (oh yes - just above) that 2-dimensional images where the creator is dead for over 100 years are public domain in the US, and I believe Germany, which are where WP's servers are located. So UK copyright law just does not apply to WP - hence our excellent collection of older images. The 2d/3d rule is because US law does not recognise the photographer of a 2D object as using enough skill to obtain their own copyright (it is of course the photo not the miniature which has copyright under UK law). It doesn't matter what license is used by the uploader, anyone can validly change it as I did. The licence you used said it was a 3-D object btw, which the miniature clearly isn't (a photo of the whole book, if there is one, would be). Carpets are a bit tricky - either 2d or 3d could be argued. Equally anyone can upload a 2d image from the V&a website & claim a PD license regardless of copyright claims on the site, as I expect you are aware. So really, once it is on the website, it is available for PD use anywhere, if it meets the 2d & age conditions. But of course these are low-res images. Johnbod 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you are making good progress, and have been working positively with the wikipedia community in order to enhance our nice encyclopedia.

Since (and also before) our first encounters there have been several similar cases with 'archives' performing link additions only, and that still is a reason for concern. I have now tried to collect an essay on this subject pertaining why this is of concern, and, in the end, try to come with some solutions. I think the way your situation was handled is a good example for this (I do link to the separate pages discussing your work in the essay).

I was wondering if you could have a look through the document. I hope you can give some recommendations (on the talkpage), or even change some things here and there (feel really free to edit the document!). It is now still in my sandbox (here), but as soon as I am satisfied with it, and can think of an appropriate name, I will move it to Wikipedia namespace (next to the other essays). Hope you can find some time to have a look. Thanks already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that material released under

As you are aware by now, any image upload to wiki that specifies non-commercial use will be deleted. Also, as Johnbod has pointed out above, images can be uploaded to wiki under a fair use claim, and US law, which applies to the wiki servers, has not recognised any copyright for a photographer of a 2D image. Even when the 2D image itself is in copyright, fair use can be claimed and an image used.

Wikipedia seeks to limit fair use claims, and there are limitations imposed by the project, stricter than legal requirements, as to how and where such images may be used. It is thus highly preferable that images are ones released under GFDL.

I therefore urge you to seriously consider releasing appropriate images under GFDL. Reasonable protection still remains, as I have pointed out above. You are obviously aware of the reach of wikipedia to a worldwide audience. The advantage to the V&A of releasing images, as suggested, is that such items in its collection will gain considerable exposure. The image page text will show the origin of the image as being the V&A.

I should stress that

Tyrenius 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Linnaeus Tripe, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/photo_focus/tripe/biography/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, Grasshopper ... you can't just go copying and reformatting pages from another site ... the

bots are ever vigilant, as you can see by the above ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 09:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken some of the caption away. Please remove anything else you think not necessary. VAwebteam (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some great images and a marvellous addition to the encyclopedia! I see you've added some very helpful text to the image pages. That would be the right place to put any further information, if you wish, maybe about where the specific example can be located in the museum for any readers who want to find the original. You are also welcome to link to the specific web page for the item on your site. I'm not aware of any other major museum contributing to wikipedia in this way before. You are certainly at the "cutting edge". Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For some great images! If anyone deserves this, I should think the V&A does! Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Victoria_and_Albert_Museum. Feel free to post there. Tyrenius (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual repository for GFDL images is the "Commons" at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . This means that all the other language wikis can use them as well, whereas if they're just on the English wiki that isn't possible. GFDL images normally get transferred there anyway, so you might like to open an account at the Commons and upload directly. This is not obligatory though. Tyrenius (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - this would also have the advantage that they could be added to the Commons category there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for what you are doing with V&A images on Wikipedia!! If you need help from someone outside, I have been working in fashion history, textile arts, Morris & Co., etc., and there are TONS of images that I wish we could use.

I am going to make a version of Image:Crewelwork.jpg without the white borders and put it in the Commons. If that's a problem, let me know and I'll delete it.- PKM (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take off the borders of this image. Thank you for your message. VAwebteam (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did; the image is here: Image:Crewelwork Jacobean V+A.jpg. I've made a new subcategory for V&A Museum textiles in fond hope that more will appear. Thanks much. - PKM (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VAwebteam! It is very cool that you work for the Victoria and Albert Museum! I was wondering that if you could upload some images of Chinese art onto Wikipedia, especially I know that the museum has many high quality selections. Pictures of ceramic art (Chinese porcleain) would be fantastic! I would appreciate it if you could take time and upload some of them.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, I wonder if you are open for requests in general. If so, we could give this some wider publicity to other wiki editors. Tyrenius (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a recent contributor to

Sorry about this. It's a bit heavy-handed. To put this to rest and avoid future problems, I wonder if you could arrange for the V&A to contact the Foundation as at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us to affirm you are entitled to give GFDL permission for images. Alternatively, if it is stated on the V&A web site that the museum web team contribute to wikipedia as VAwebteam that would be just as good, and it could be linked to from your user page. Maybe it would make a nice feature on the museum site that objects from the collection are now being featured in wikipedia articles. Tyrenius (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is is possible for the V&A to release the embroidery design by May Morris here (or som,ething similar) for use in Wikipedia? We could also use a photograph of May Morris as an adult. Thanks so much. - PKM (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all images from the V&A website that you upload to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you are hereby authorized to place {{PermissionOTRS|https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1332999}} on the image description pages. This indicates that an agent from the V&A Museum has indeed confirmed the terms of the image licensing. Regards,