Category talk:Images by Lilyu

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Dit, dit, je peux faire un peu de ménage/maintenance et créer des sous catégories?

Esby (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Non--Lilyu (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Should be hidden[edit]

See Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Categories. Use {{user category}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in this linked policy that expressly say that the user category must be hidden. What is asked there is the mandatory categorization which can be done with or without the template, not the hidden parameter. Esby (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The template contains the hiddencat parameter. And the page says: "In general: you are welcome to create things for your own convenience, as long as they won't disrupt other people browsing in a normal way."
This is just a category for the convenience of an contributor to keep track of his uploads. Other people do not need to see this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
So categorizing files you work on is a disruption? I think the hidden cat are mainly used to avoid category related tools to fail when those cats are apposed via a template... You realize that a user template linking to this category would do the same job and would be allowed? Esby (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
But everyone else's are hidden. What makes Lilyu's category so special? The hiddencat parameter is mainly for bots, it's so they don't count this is a "real" category. Rocket000 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I ain't Lilyu, I don't know her opinion on the subject. But I still far prefer seeing a category visible than a template advertising the photograph or creator... Esby (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Those vanity tags are a nuisance too. But at least they are obvious. Users do not mistake them for subject categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For the current issue, I won't comment more. Now I am wondering if the usage of 'hidden category' is adequate: This seems used for various reason:
  • Technical: tools/bots can take them in account and ignore when one is encountered, the actual reason for the ignore being either editorial (don't mess in user space) or technical (don't try to remove a category that is actually transcluded...)
  • Maintenance: new users are not supposed to see maintenance tags.
  • User friendly argumentation: new users are not supposed to see complicated tags, some are judged irrelevant for them and hidden, thus, the drawback is that none of them knows that images are categorized in PD categories when using a PD template... This logic has been argumented before, the only current is 'turn off' hidding template' which do not help new users.
  • Offuscation of non encyclopdic activities: invocating this should not be displayed by default... hidding user category enters this by default. Are we so ashamed of it so we want to hide them? I mean, I understand that the user category should be hidden if possible, I mean I have some of them that are of only interest to me, now I don't agree with systmatical hiding...
Esby (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hidden categories are not really hidden. You can switch them on with an option in your preferences. This way everyone's happy. Those that want to see it, can, and those that don't, don't have to. It's really not a big deal, out of the thousands of user categories this is the only one I know of that's not hidden. Rocket000 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Back on the subject, the other user categories being hidden do not make that this category must be hidden. There is nothing in the policy excepting the disruption argumentation. But the disruption argumentation apply for templates too... Lilyu's drawing are known at least on the french wikipedia (I am thinking to the drawing in this style: File:Babel by Lilyu.gif File:Champi-lilyu.png File:Courge rale.png File:Happy birthday nohjan.svg File:Les Lapinous Furieux.png File:Le p'tit cabaliste-dynamite.png File:Reine des Courges.png File:Where is the pony.gif ) She apparently do not want (see previous discussion) that her other works for wikipedia to be treated differently, so all the images are in the same category. The user here reverted the hidding of the category, so be it. This category added on the images she corrects or works with is not a disruption to my eyes. Esby (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Didnt notice this talkpage. I feel very uncomfortable with images such as File:GKWarren.jpg and some other examples where this is 1) the only category and where 2) even I feel disturbed by a visible category saying "image by xy" which has clearly no educational, informative or any other value because the "by" is related to nothing but maintenance, the upload. I really not appreciate if we present our outside users such a category as a content category saying, that this 1860s photograph is a file by Lilyu. Make it hidden. --Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the issue, still I feel uncomfortable that bots and tools use the hidden state to avoid working on a category rather than a more significative one. I'd prefer seeing something dedicated to the job and not using the __HIDDEN__ keyword as a trick/hack (since it is intented for hiding content and not for maintenance directly). Something like category:Bot Maintenance Ignore that the bots/tools should check rather than checking the hidden status.
For the second remark, "I really not appreciate if we present our outside users such a category as a content category saying, that this 1860s photograph is a file by Lilyu. " well, commons category only appears on commons, not on the wikipedias. So this is not really outside if the user is coming to commons. You may also notice that without Lilyu you would not have the 1860s photograph on Commons. I also think the description of the category is quite clear.
Esby (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, __HIDDENCAT__ was made exactly for this purpose. It's not to hide content, it's to hide non-content. Rocket000 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This category is usefull, i need it and use it. The policies say i'm welcome to create such categories, and the only obligation is to have it categorised inside Category:User categories, which is the case. No policy force it to be hidden. I see some experienced users here, and i see revert war, edits to force a point of view, and not a single message on my damn talk page to warn me what is going on. That's not civil.

The main point is that i respect the policies, and that none of you have the right to force that hidden thing because he feels like it. The policies are with me, and that is enought. If you refuse to understand the difference between "should" and "must", this is your problem, not mine.--Lilyu (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You said that you want it and need it and that you work with it. Well, I operate my own category, so of course you are allowed to have it. But why not make it a hidden category? It is clearly not a content category so it not belongs on the same level. --Martin H. (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The hidden tag was not created for this purpose. "not a content category" : This category is correctly categorised in Category:User categories, and the description on the category is absolutly clear.--Lilyu (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your argumentation is not reasonable. Making the category hidden will improve Commons and it will not limit your ability to work with the category in any way. Doing something that improves the situation for at least one individual without worsen it to any other individual is an Pareto improvement, not doing this improvement is irrational. The category is not a content category, making it visible not follows the Commons aims but enlarges the file description with a non-educational category related to a special user. Making it hidden would be perfect and it would follow the commonsense and consensus, see Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Hidden user categories. OK? and also see Commons:Help_desk/Archives/2009Jan#Why are some Taken with categories hidden and others are not? - I wonder why Esby changed his mind here. There are also some other discussions about this, not many because it was not really an issue so far. I neither see a need to insist on the word "should" nor do I have the wish to start a discussion about changing the "should" to "must". --Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd want to add It's not like I changed my mind, I just say there is some logic in the user category usually hidden, I did not say that I did agree to force hiding them, that's rather different. You are the first one naming one of the technical issue. Here we got two kinds of logic: 'easygoing' in using the hidden tag to fix problems not related with hiding / showing the category, this is, in my opinion, using this tag as an hack to solve the job, instead of trying to solve it properly. We may don't have the means to solve it right now, but it's sad that we have to hide DP / FP / Taken with category because no better solution is implemented for now. I do aggree on that on the principle that getting rid of the bug is more important than allowing some users to show their category. Now there is another aspect here, tendencious, is that it seems we must not show the work of users, because they are 'out of scope'. I am sorry but I don't find this kind of logic acceptable. Apparently having a category with the works of Rembrandt is ok, having a category with the works of Carlos Latuf is also ok apparently, now having the works of an user who gives some free times to upload, fix and improves images is apparently not ok and must be 'forbidden'. I can't agree on that logic if you see what I mean... Esby (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason whatsoever to collect images by their uploader. The only thing they have in common is that Lilyu uploaded them. It is not even a source category. And source categories, like Bundesarchiv are also hidden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like you need to read again the description of the category. Besides, for your information, when people use a tool to upload the image, the image does not appear in their gallery. Source categories are hidden because they would end as categorized by the categorisation tool/bot, for the reasons previously mentionned. Esby (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The contents of this shoebox are of interest to Lilyu only. Lilyu can turn on the hidden categories in the personal preferences, and everything should be fine. The rest of commons users do not need to wonder who this Lilyu is or what "by Lilyu" means. One should not need to read the category description to see that this is a false claim for a lot of the content here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lilyu is right about the policy. He's overlooking common practice (everyone else's is hidden), but fair enough; it's not written anywhere. That suggests to me it's time to update the policy page. Rocket000 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then it will be time to make a big source template that links to lilyu category and explains why this template is here, then there will be the need to add it to all images of the category... Esby (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
For transferring American Civil War images from enwp to commons? That is just silly. Such PD files are now categorized as "Images by Lilyu", which is totally unacceptable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Or just learn to use this tool like the rest of us. :) Rocket000 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, guys, you need to learn to read... File:GKWarren.jpg IS NOT in the common sense gallery because AS EXPLAINED earlier it was uploaded via a bot... Esby (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Used rollback on the un-categorisation performed by User:Pieter Kuiper as this ain't acceptable at all.There is a difference between saying I was going to make a template and really doing this. Esby (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not what administrator buttons are for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You should not forget that the gadgets were never made to try to pass in force in category warring. Esby (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I need this category, i use it, and it was visited around a thousand times last year, thus i'm not the only one clicking on it. There is no reason to restrict it for logged in commons users, there is no commons policy about that kind of behavior, and the purpose of Commons is to share, not to hide and restrict.

You don't use this category, you don't need it, and you don't care about it. The reasons why you are here are theoretical reasons backed up by no policy.

What do you want me to do ? Create a big template and spamming it over 300 images with a clear link to this category, rather than being a few words at the bottom of the image page ? I don't see the need for that, and that way it gonna bring even more visibility to that category you want to hide.

I upload images i created or edited. The images i uploaded without being able to claim any copyright over it, is around 20 over 300 images. Negligible. I had to do it because i have created the articles on those subject on french wikipedia, so i needed to illustrate them, and i had to transfer them here because a bunch of people upload on the english wikipedia rather than commons. Those few images are in this category, because i also need to be able to go back to them a year later to fix stuff, and it can only be done with a category : Commons offers no other way to keep track of a list of images uploaded by a user (Special:Log is just unusefull for this purpose when you upload hundreds of images). You want me to remove them from the category just because of a shorten category name using a "by" which can have many meanings but of which you accept only one : owning it ?

I can change the name for a longer one to be more explicit, but it won't change the fact that you support your arguments on lazy peoples who don't read => that kind of reason can bring no solution.

I can create a hidden subcategory "images uploaded by lilyu" just for those civil war images, and the main Category:Images by Lilyu would stay unhidden because it's a creater/copyright owner category, which is a common kind of unhidden category. But i feel like that you will not be satisfied by that solution, and a split for just 20 images... pfffffffff. Besides, i want to make something clear about it : i did not create those, ok, but i'm responsible for them. I'm the only one in the whole world that is legally responsible for them to be here : not you, not commons, and not wikimedia foundation. I'm the one in trouble if there is a problem with them one day. I need to keep track of them. Or you delete them and reupload them using your own name.--Lilyu (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What we want you to do is what the rest of us do. All our personal categories are hidden (for those of us that have them, which I don't personally see the need as I feel once I upload something to the world it's no longer mine, but to each his own). Policy or not, that's how it is. This is the first time anyone had an issue with it. Sure, people have asked "why?" before, but no outright refused to hide their own. It's a compromise. Instead of having stronger restrictions on the categories you can create (e.g. one per person, only with files you create, not upload, etc.), we just hide them. This way, the people that want to see them can, and those that don't, don't have to. On a wiki, everyone needs to make some compromises once in a while or otherwise it just doesn't work... it's important not to just think of yourself. Rocket000 (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I for Was never sure why "by photographer" categories are hidden if photographer happen to be Commons user. that seems to be a little of a punishment of the Commons contributors. After all other photographer categories are not hidden. My is hidden because someone changed it and I did not feel like having edit war. If I find some image I like I often will look at other images of this photographer, similarly I might want to look at other images taken with the same camera. I think not-logged-in users should be allowed to do the same. On the other hand I agree that an image only categorized by "by photographer" category is not properly categorized. May be we need a different way of marking categories hidden from view and categories which do not count towards categorization.--Jarekt (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, other photographers, unless notable (i.e. they have they're own Wikipedia article), should be hidden as well. Someone just didn't get to it yet. For example, I just recently hide 20 or PD categories. There's still a lot out there yet. Rocket000 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And if it feels like punishment, then I would question the reasoning behind the category in the first place. It's a vanity/ownership thing and they want others to see it. A wiki is the worst place for that. Flickr is a more appropriate place to get attention. Rocket000 (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a photographer, and i don't care about vanity. I'm a wikigraphist, i create stuff for other peoples, because they request it to me. I care about my responsibilities and my needs. I have proposed solutions.
"What we want you to do is what the rest of us do". Oh come on, you perfectly know how it's working : a few guys like you who think they are Commons have spammed all those user categories with _hiddencat_ without even asking the category creator. Decide, don't talk, edit hundreds of page, and claim consensus to force the few who refuse. Oh yeah, one discussion : [1]. With who having what opinion ? Rocket000 & Pieter Kuiper. Doh.--Lilyu (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The suggestion that this category should be hidden. That is the convention and having read through all that has been said here I've not seen anything which prompts me to consider this a particularly special case. This category is an administration category, i.e. it doesn't organise files by content, and so it makes sense to hide it like most similar categories which don't directly relate to the nature of the content. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for hiding, now rather strongly after viewing File:Bee sting infection2.JPG, an image taken by User:Otourly, but openly categorized as Apis mellifera and Images by Lilyu (though Otourly is properly credited in the Author_entry). IMHO, with such a categorization other contributors may feel misrepresented when they see "Images by (someone else than the author)", without seeing "Images by (author)". --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
About the Bee Sting example: This is a derivated work (probably done on request) of File:Bee_sting_infection.JPG. Lilyu uploaded it and is responsible for it legally speaking. This is perfectly according to the category description. Esby (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Esby, obviously you don't want to understand. I didn't say a word about legal, but about how a user feels when his/her image is categorized as "Image by (someone else)", and cropping and slightly retouching doesn't make you a new author of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well technically, even if it is cropping / adjusting color, Lilyu is the author of those modifications. This image has just now several authors. Of course, she did not credit herself, but still she is one author like someone who correct typos in a wikipedia article is also one of the authors of the article. Technically she worked on that image, she took the time to edit the description, add a template informing that the image had been retouched, credit the initial author. Some people are making a big fuss because the image got a small 'Images by lilyu', honestly, I think those people should edit/ enhance and create more images before saying they should be 'hidden' because it is 'forbidden' in 'policy' (I am not inventing anything here, I am evoking the first line of this talk page section...) Esby (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
For such images, category:Images by Lilyu is inappropriate even as a hidden category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree, the name does seem to be potentially misleading. A better name would be along the lines of "Images uploaded by Lilyu" but, whilst I understand why uploaders wish to categorise content they have created, I don't see the value of categorising simply any content they've uploaded. I can't think of any instances where I've felt it would be particularly useful to be able to navigate content I've uploaded and if there are situations where that is necessary then tools exist to do so without requiring everything to be categorised. Adambro (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You can read nojhan point of view here about the value of categorizing. I think Pieter is overestimating the impact of a random user seeing a 'images by Lilyu' in a visible category. Esby (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You wrote that the category had been visited a thousand times. Probably most of this by people curious about the photographer of American Civil Ware images, moonwalks, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)January consultation:

@Kuiper: Sounds like you wrote another idiocy: Here are the stats from grok.se about articles present in Category:Images_by_Lilyu from january 2010:

category stats: 53 times

American history:

File:Chiving1.jpg 17
File:Apollo 17
AS17-140-21497.jpg 10
File:RSMackenzie.jpg 13
File:GKWarren.jpg 13
File:David McMurtrie Gregg.jpg 6


Lilyu french humor:

File:Champi-lilyu.png 59
File:Courge peintre.png 32
File:Courge_Facture.png 20
File:Election CAr2.png 15
File:Pow wow.jpg 14
File:Salebot et lilyu.png 13
File:There is no CABAL by Lilyu-fr.jpg 13
File:Babel by Lilyu.gif 11
File:Clicsourie.png 11

You can probably do the same on the others months with probably the same results. (I'll check it later I think.) I think You can notice yourself what the people are searching when they come on Commons... Obviously, not american civil war nor moonwalks... So your remark was just irrelevant. Esby (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* create a real policy about the use of that hidden magic word and i will comply with it. Meanwhile, let me that tool i need, please. Regarding the "by" thing, that's really nice of you to deny the time i put in those images. I'm not a photographer, it take more than the 1/2 second required to press a button, to rework images like that one : File:NDiaye01-cropped.jpg. The real question behind that, is why people like me would continue to invest energy and time for helping other people, when guys like you treat us like thief. Cause that's what you are accusing me of. --Lilyu (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it sounds like simple vanity to me. You want it as a tool. Fine. No one asking that we delete this. The tool works that same way when it's hidden so stop using that as your reason. Taking your time and energy elsewhere is not a threat if you're not doing what the community wants in the first place. Rocket000 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
@Rocket: who is the community you are referring to? A selected group of people who think that the category of users should be hidden at all costs? The category is within the policy for now. I honestly suppose that the category is hidden or visible does not constitute a real issue, as the impact is very minor, but Lilyu visible category seems to be the "black sheep", so it must be eradicated? It's not like her category contains images she likes/dislikes, images meant for provocate or anything related. (I'll exclude in advance Pieter comment to lilyu trying to appropriate the Public Domain, reminding that most of her other images are under WTFPL with attribution.) Esby (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The community I refer to is the Commons community. Obviously it's not a very minor issue or both sides wouldn't be here. Rocket000 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, i ask few days for me to make a list of all images i uploaded and can't claim any copyright over them. Meanwhile, don't remove them for the category, please, i'm scared to loose some in the edits war esby and peter kuiper are doing atm. After that, i'm going to ask you to delete them from Commons, and reupload them using your own account, so that i have no longuer any link or responsability established with them. After that, they are welcome to be kicked out of this category, thx.--Lilyu (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you turn on hidden categories for yourself? Why don't you use the gallery tab on your user page? Why cannot you use this search to keep track of images you contributed? Please refrain from making disruptive deletion requests. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, one more time, Pieter, start the tool you just linked, search for "GKWarren.jpg" in the results. Thanks for trying that at least once. And not make me repeat what I said here one more time. Esby (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
So what? Is there anybody else who understands what Esby is trying to say? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Esby's point is that since Lilyu didn't upload the image, only initiated the transfer by bot, the image won't appear using the tool so the category allows for Lilyu to find that upload. I don't see how hiding the cat would hinder that, nor renaming the category to reduce any potential for confusion about the source of images. Personally, I've never really felt it necessary to organise such uploads that I've done. I add everything to my watchlist which allows me to keep an eye on them, I don't think categorising them would be of much benefit but I appreciate others may have different views. Adambro (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. The Warren upload does show up in this search. It gives everything with "Lilyu" in any field of the file description. And of course the Warren image is in no way an "image by Lilyu". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, after some thinking: The main problem is that we have a policy which has absolutely zero reference to the fact the user categories must be hidden. Based on that, we cannot take action against someone who don't want to hide his/her user category. Now it is accepted as common sense that such categories should be hidden, but notice the importance of the 'should', I have to agree for myself that that I don't see any real issues in seeing my own categories being hidden. Now we have another problem: some categories are hidden, including the users category, including some other interesting categories and the maintenance categories. While normal users probably won't really care about maintenance categories, they can be interested by some of the non-maintenance category. So technically if they see to see the hidden categories, they'll probably see contents they don't want to see. I personnaly hope this issue will solved by future mediawiki improvements or by future interface gadgets. Right now, on the issue, I won't ask Lilyu to comply to a part of a policy that is non-existent. If any actions or decision are to be taken, this part of the policy has to be written clearly. Now I think I can make a gadget that will allow to see any user category without seeing the whole maintenance part. I think the same could be done for other kind of category. This could solve the issue here as Lilyu uses that as a tool, so if she can see her category like before without affecting the other user, this will probably content everyone. Esby (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Lilyu/grr go ahead : delete, remove any possible occurence of my name, and than re-upload. If you remove the tool i'm using to keep track of them, i refuse to assume responsibility for them any longer. Remember that commons doesn't really exist, the wikimedia foundation is quite clear about that : they are simple host, the uploader is the only legal responsible, publishing those images by using service provided by the WMF. You want to make my job harder ? Fine, do it yourself. Thanks & bye.--Lilyu (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Gadget script done for displaying hidden user category into normal categories (The hotcat button won't appear because they don't exist in the first place for hidden categories.) Script here: User:Esby/usercat.js Esby (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Images_by_Lilyu
commons.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-36
65581
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:RN6DYGR3JLDZ2EYR77U45YNQ5JOXFN3O
<urn:uuid:0c8754df-0b0f-44c1-be01-6390e93e497e>
2016-08-29T05:22:25Z
208.80.154.224
sha1:CSHDW6Y7PISQJUQ4NRGS6EHGZPPCMBXD
<urn:uuid:1e02a0c7-5219-45c6-8bf5-9b03923c2354>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Images_by_Lilyu
response
<urn:uuid:959a680f-27cb-4b40-849c-c4f90a400c4a>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf