Jump to content

User talk:JWilz12345

Add topic
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Latest comment: 24 days ago by Ox1997cow in topic File:NHCPjf9310 20.JPG
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JWilz12345!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ລາວ | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Userboxes
UTC+8This user's timezone is UTC+8.
This user respects copyright, but sometimes it can be a major pain.


Why is specific building tagged as FOP when it applies to buildings in entire country?

[edit]

Good day. I noticed you added {{FoP-architecture-category}} to the category for a specific building in New Orleans [1]. Wouldn't that template equally apply to all buildings in the United States per US law? Perhaps it would be better put on the parent category Category:Buildings in the United States than for a specific building? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Infrogmation no, the template is meant for individual works. I also used it on the categories of some of the recent Danish, Russian, Finnish, Norwegian, and Japanese buildings. It isn't a permanent template, since it must be removed the moment the building's architectural copyright expires in its jurisdiction, like 70 years after the architect's death for authorial buildings in almost all of the architectural-FoP jurisdictions, 70 years after completion or construction for buildings in Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway, and Russia authored by architecture firms, or 95 years after publish/120 years after create for US buildings authored by architecture firms.
As implied here, not all US buildings are covered by FoP. All pre-1990 buildings, with their images supposedly tagged with {{PD-US-architecture}}, are in public domain and not covered by FoP. FoP category header templates must be removed from the categories of public domain buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Interesting - thanks for your reply! Has this been discussed somewhere on Commons? Could you please direct me to relevant discussion about adding such templates to US buildings? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Infrogmation I created this as a relative of {{FoP-category}}, which together with its counterpart {{NoFoP-category}} were created to avoid using {{NoUploads}} to categories of specific landmarks or objects (buildings, sculptures etc.), since NoUploads was supposedly for categories of artists and the "resident galleries" of those artists. These were also created to prevent file-only templates (like {{FoP-US}} and {{FoP-Singapore}}) from being used on the categories of landmarks themselves, since the documentations of the FoP templates state "the template is intended to be used in the following namespaces: the File namespace." The root discussion is at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/03#NoUploads, No-FOP templates, and categories of structures of no-FOP countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Pings

[edit]

Hello, thanks for mentioning me in a few discussions. I'm happy to answer questions on discussion boards like the village pump, but sorry I wasn't able to get back to you because I've been really busy over the last year with school and entrance examinations. Just wanted to let you know you're more than welcome to ping me any time; I just have a tight schedule and might not be able to reach everything. Thanks! Takipoint123 (💬) 07:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Takipoint123 understood. I can be reached on Discord, too, if you prefer reaching me out there. I just replied now because I got busy in reviewing recently-undeleted images of modern Saudi Arabian buildings after the acceptance of Saudi FoP for exterior architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

File:NHCPjf9310 20.JPG

[edit]
File:NHCPjf9310 20.JPG has been nominated for deletion at

This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply