This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mural of Marcus Rashford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Different mural, but should we mention vandalism to the Darlington artwork here as well?
Seems relevant another mural depicting Rashford has been vandalized. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@ ItsKesha: There's no need to remove all the unused infobox fields, especially those which could potentially be used in the future (dimensions, etc). Also, the URL field is not for the artist's official website, but rather an official website for this specific work of art. This is pretty standard across quality public art entries. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
File:Rashford Mural.jpg is tagged for deletion under deletion criteria F6 - lack of non-free use rationale. he uploader can and has freely licenced the photograph but as the subject of the photo is a mural (a 2D graphic work) the content of the photograph is not covered under UK Freedom of panorama (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama) and can only be used on Wikipedia under the non-free content criteria. The addition of a valid rationale for use in this article will prevent deletion. Nthep ( talk) 18:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Nthep: OK, do you know how to fix? I understand you're asking the uploader to fix the problem, but they don't seem interested in resolving the issue. But, do you know how to save this image from deletion? I'm asking for the sake of the Wikipedia entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NFCCP has 10 points. The rationale has to address all 10 or it fails to be a valid rationale, as described at WP:FUR. That the picture is of the article subject and adds contextual significance is just one of the ten (#8). Nthep ( talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mural of Marcus Rashford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 July 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Different mural, but should we mention vandalism to the Darlington artwork here as well?
Seems relevant another mural depicting Rashford has been vandalized. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@ ItsKesha: There's no need to remove all the unused infobox fields, especially those which could potentially be used in the future (dimensions, etc). Also, the URL field is not for the artist's official website, but rather an official website for this specific work of art. This is pretty standard across quality public art entries. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
File:Rashford Mural.jpg is tagged for deletion under deletion criteria F6 - lack of non-free use rationale. he uploader can and has freely licenced the photograph but as the subject of the photo is a mural (a 2D graphic work) the content of the photograph is not covered under UK Freedom of panorama (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama) and can only be used on Wikipedia under the non-free content criteria. The addition of a valid rationale for use in this article will prevent deletion. Nthep ( talk) 18:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Nthep: OK, do you know how to fix? I understand you're asking the uploader to fix the problem, but they don't seem interested in resolving the issue. But, do you know how to save this image from deletion? I'm asking for the sake of the Wikipedia entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NFCCP has 10 points. The rationale has to address all 10 or it fails to be a valid rationale, as described at WP:FUR. That the picture is of the article subject and adds contextual significance is just one of the ten (#8). Nthep ( talk) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)