This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

I would like to catch your attention to the New South Wales National Park and Wildlife Service logo that you keep on deleting on my profile.

It is said on NSW NPWS website that "The entire logo is to be used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image" which I believe was the case on the infoboxes promoting National Parks in NSW.

If it goes against the American laws, well that's too bad but Wikipedia is not only for American eyes. Why didn't you remove it from National Parks and Wildlife Service (New South Wales)?

And there are logos from USA NPS to remove from my profile, too...

Aussie Oc ( talk) 08:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Aussie Oc: This has nothing to do with American law, Australian law or what its written on the NSW NPWS website. Non-free content is not allowed to be used (i.e., displayed) in the user namespace (see WP:UP#Non-free files) or in userboxes (see WP:UBX#Caution about image use) because such usage does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, in particular WP:NFCC#9. I didn't remove File:NPWS NSW logo.svg from that article because that particular use seems to comply with relevant Wikipedia policy; if you feel it doesn't for some reason, then you can remove the file. If you choose do so, however, you should leave an edit sum explaining why like I did here and here when I removed the file from your user page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: Okay fair enough, even if it seem to be a policy made by the European Union ;-). So what's the rationale to allow the use of USA NPS logo in similar infoboxes?

Aussie Oc ( talk) 00:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The policy was made pretty much the same way all policies are made on Wikipedia; it was discussed and established through consensus. You can read more about it WP:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines and Wikipedia:History of non-free content policies if you like.

I am not sure what the other image you are referring to is, but in general how an image may be used on Wikipedia depends upon how it is licensed. All image use is subject to WP:IUP, but non-content is further subject to WP:NFCC. In general, public domain or freely licensed images are a bit easier to use because they are not subject to the same restrictions as non-free images; so, it's possible this other image is what Wikipedia refers to as a "free image". You can generally find out how an images is licensed by clicking on the image and look at the information on its page. There should be something about the copyright status of the file somewhere on the page; if there isn't, then the file may be nominated for speedy deletion per WP:F4. So check the licensing of the image and if it's a "free image", then it's OK for user pages and userboxes (I think you meant "userbox" not "infobox"), etc.; if it's a "non-free image", then it's not. In addition, other language Wikipedias may have their own rules regarding non-free content use. Non-free images tend to be uploaded locally and their use is only intended for that particular Wikipedia; so, if you see an image being used on different language Wikipedias then there's a good chance it is a "free image" uploaded to Commons.

FWIW, Commons does not except any non-free images (see c:COM:FU) at all, so images you find on Commons are generally OK to use on user pages, etc. I say "generally" because images are uploaded by people and people do make mistakes. Lots of people seem to confuse "free of charge" with "free of copyright" and assume anything available for "free" from the Internet be a "free image", which something that is almost always not the case at all. Wikipedia and Commons try to assume good faith when it comes to image uploads and give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, but images which are determined to be clearly inappropriately licensed (e.g., claimed to be "own work" when they are clearly not) will be tagged for speedy deletion when they are found. In less clear cases, the uploader may be asked to provide a declaration of consent for verification purposes; if they are unable to do so, the file is also likely to be eventually deleted. In still other cases, discussion at venues like WP:FFD or c:COM:DR may be necessary to sort things out. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Marchjuly|Patches.OHoulahan|Non-free image use again|ts = 22:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)}}

You recently reversed my edit adding various files to List_of_Canadian_provincial_and_territorial_symbols including coats of arms for Prince Edward Island as seen under Symbols_of_Prince_Edward_Island. To address your edit, I have received written approval from the provincial government of Prince Edward Island in order to present their coat of arms on the page in question. Thus, I wish to update the copyright permissions. How do I document this approval provided by the Executive Council Office of the Province of Prince Edward Island? The Executive Council Office has authorized the publication on Wikipedia in any format required. Is it advisable to upload a new image in a different format in order to include this image on the list in question?

Thank you

From: Darlene Ching <dlching@gov.pe.ca> To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Nancy McCabe <NMMCCABE@gov.pe.ca> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 9:46:18 AM PDT Subject: Re: Use of PEI Arms

Good afternoon Mr. Unger,

Upon review of your request, I reviewed the Coat of Arms Act and Regulations and discussed your request with Paul Ledwell, Clerk of the Executive Council.

I am pleased to inform you that you are authorized to use the Prince Edward Island Coat of Arms to be used on the Wikipedia webpage for Canadian Provincial and Territorial Symbols.

By copy of this email, I am authorizing Nancy McCabe of our Strategic Marketing Office to provide you with an electronic image of the coat of arms in the formats that you require. Please contact Nancy McCabe directly by email as to the format(s) you require.

If you require any further, please do not hesitate to contact us.

I wish you every success with your updates.

Darlene Ching Executive Council Office Province of Prince Edward Island

Patches.OHoulahan ( talk) 22:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Patches.OHoulahan: You seem to be misunderstanding Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and how it is being applied in this particular case. The reason the file cannot be used in that article is not because it is lacking the permission of the Executive Council Office of Prince Edward Island; it is because the file is licensed as non-free content and each use of non-free content is required to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. In general, the use of non-free images in articles such as List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols is not allowed per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES because such usage is considered decorative and lacking the context required by WP:NFCC#8; in other words, the image is just being used for show and is not itself the subject of any sourced critical commentary within the article. Such usage also almost always fails WP:NFCC#3, it that the image is being used in other articles (like Coat of arms of Prince Edward Island) where it is contextual use is more clearly established and thus is not considered decorative; in such cases, it is preferrable to add a link to article where the image is being discussed as explained in item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. This has nothing to do with how the Executive Office thinks the image can be used, but everything to do with how the image is licensed for use on Wikipedia. Their permission means pretty much nothing when it comes to non-free use, and they do not get to decide in which articles the file is OK to use.

Premission of the copyright holder is only needed when the file is claimed to have been released under a "free license" such as a Creative Commons license. If the Executive Office is the copyright holder of the coat of arms imagery, then they can decide to release the file under a free license of their choosing as long as the license is accpetable for Wikipedia. Giving you permission to use the image in a particular Wikipedia article is not enough; they have to agree to give unrestricted permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the file and use it for any puprpose, including commercial purposes. They should send the email to Wikipedia OTRS as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. If they do that, then the file's licensing can be changed to a "free license" and it's use will no longer be subject to the Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and the image can be used in the "List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols" article. The Exectuive Office, however, needs to understand that a "free license" is cannot be canceled after the fact. A list of free licenses accpetable for Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses and a list of free licenses acceptable for Wikimedia Commons can be found at c:Commons:Copyright tags.

Another possibility is that the image is considered to be in the public domain for one reason or another. For some countries, works created by public employees at the national level in the course of their official duties are considered to be in the public domain, but I'm not sure if the same can be said for provincial governments in Canada. Other reasons for an image being in the public domain have to do with when it was created and how complex it's design is, etc. Simple symbols and words are not eligible for copyright protection, but coat of arms tend to be much more complex and creative. The blazon of a coat of arms is typically considered to be in the public domain, but the same cannot be said for the actual representative image itself. In general, its best to assume official coat of arms images such as this are considered to be protected by copyright unless it is clearly stated otherwise as explained in c:Commons:Coats of arms.

I think you should ask for further assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright if would like clarification from others. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Robertjgray's talk page.
Message added 22:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Robertjgray ( talk) 22:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey friend, um, I was wondering f you could help me out with the citations, you know, the references. They aren't formatted properly (they don't have names, authors, or the date of when they were written). This is due to me, because I just put the link to the article and nothing more. This was because I was rushing to get all the information into the draft page asap. It was a lot of information from a lot of years of development. You understand. If you could help me out with that, that would be greatly appreciated. Ive been really busy lately. I can do half and you could do half if that'd work with you? Thanks buddy. I messaged you because you seem to be interested in my draft page for Happytime Murders. So excited for this project! Sounds great! TheMovieGuy ( talk)

Hi TheMovieGuy. I'm not really interested in the subject matter of your draft per se; I've just removed images from it that have been flagged as WP:NFCC#9 violations. After looking at it, however, I have some general suggestions.

1. There are no deadlines. Some people are quite good at writing good articles quickly; other people start drafts that they never finished. Articles are not expected to be perfect and usually will be improved little bits at a time over the years by various editors. My experience with people who start mentioning that they are in a rush or are under a deadline has been that they tend to be here for reasons other than Wikipedia and/or they are somehow connected to the subject they are trying to write about.
2. Since you are writing about a film, you are going to have to show how the film satisfies WP:NFILM. However, since the film has yet to be released, you are going to need to worry about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. The film appears to be a major production starring a major star, so there should quite a number of reliable sources about it found online. If you're concerned about the " Wikipedia notability" of the subject matter, try asking for help at WT:FILM. The editors in that WikiProject tend to be pretty experienced at writing/edting articles about films.
3. Referencing is very important on Wikipedia, but there is no one correct way to cite a reference. Drafts for new articles are almost never declined because of poorly formatted references; they are declined because the references are poor to begin with. You've added what are called bare urls to your draft. Although this is not desirable, it's not going to a problem which might cause your draft to be declined and is something which can be fixed fairly easily. Please refer to WP:REFB for some general examples on how to do that. I can format the references for you, but I think you'll probably get more out of it you do it yourself. It's not a particularly complicated process, especially if you use citation templates. You just have to try and keep the formating consistent. You can practice in your user sandbox using other articles/drafts as reference.
4. Drafts are also almost always never declined because they do not contain any images. Non-free content can be pretty tricky to use, and it can only be used in the article namespace; so, it's probably best to wait until the draft has been upgraded to article status before worrying about any of that. In my opinion, you should be able to use a non-free image of the movie's official release poster for indentification purposes in the main infobox. The use of other non-free images, however, is going to be much harder to justify because of WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. You can find some general information about using non-free images in articles about films at WP:FILMNFI. Freely licensed or public domain images, on the other hand, are much easier to use since they are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can add these types of images to drafts as long as they satisfy WP:IUP.

Sorry if I couldn't be of more help. As drafts go, the one you're working on does not seem all that bad, especially since it seems you've only been editing for a few months. You should ask about it at WT:FILM and see what others think. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted to know if you wanted to make the bare citations less bare but, I hear you. Thanks for the info friend! TheMovieGuy ( talk)

Hi again TheMovieGuy. As I said, I can do it but it's not complicated to do. In fact, one of the citations in the draft was formatted when the draft was created with this edit. You can basically just use the same formatting as Captain Assasin! per WP:CITEVAR. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, i know how to properly format it, but it's so much to do. I just wanted to split the work of doing it with somebody. I'll ask somebody else. Thanks for the info again though, really helpful! TheMovieGuy ( talk)

If you don't want to do it yourself, then it's probably best to just leave it be. Another editor or a bot will eventually get to it. If you want, you can add Template:Cleanup bare URLs to the top of the page and someone will eventually get to it. Other than that, try Derek R Bullamore; he seems to do a lot of this type a clean up and is proficient at it. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Gators men's basketball logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corkythe hornetfan (ping me) 21:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing those flags, I had not realised they were not free! Philly boy92 ( talk) 12:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No big deal. It can sometimes hard to guess a file's licensing from just looking at it, so it's a good idea to check the copyright tag on its page to make sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth the most extensive discussion I am aware of on this point was in August 2009, at Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_discussion/Archive_6#No_consensus. The RfC was never formally closed, just archived, but one admin at least, in a DRV close a few weeks later, considered that it had not established any consensus to change WP:DGFA, so "no consensus" to delete should continue to lead to an image being kept.

If this is no longer the case, it is perhaps worth raising at WT:DGFA, to see whether that guidance should specifically mention NFC, in the way that for example it already has a specific section on BLP. If it turns into a full-on discussion, then perhaps those that are still around that participated in the August 2009 discussion should be notified.

A point of view which I think is quite useful in this area is the paragraph on "rebuttable presumption" in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_image_deletion_discussions#Misunderstanding_burden_of_proof, in line with the general principle made out at WP:DGFA that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy". The basic onus is on those who would keep a non-free image to make a case as to why per policy it should be kept. However, if they can make a concrete argument based in policy that could on the face of it be credible, then there is then an onus on those who would see the image removed to make a similarly concrete response as to why the argument to keep is flawed -- just to say "I don't agree" is not enough.

I am curious as to why this has come up now. Have there been a lot of FFDs recently being closed "no consensus"? As I think I expressed back in 2009, it seems to me that in practical terms the FFD process is already quite heavily weighted against the uploader -- in most cases I would have thought relying on a particular interpretation of "no consensus" would seldom be necessary, and that in most cases a file that should be deleted would be better deleted via a positive finding that those calling for keep had not made an argument that was credible within policy. Jheald ( talk) 10:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. Yes, there have been some recently closed FFDs as "no consensus" which the closer has defaulted to keep. There has also been a recent DRV which was quite contentious and in which "no consensus to keep" was an argument made by those asking for a file to be undeleted/relisted. After reading the above-mentioned RfC, I have to say I find the arguments for defaulting to delete with respect to non-free content more persuasive, but I also realize there has been apparently considerable disagreement on this for quite some time. However, I do think FFD discussions need to be looked at slightly differently than other XfD discussions and the case for keeping an image needs to be really quite strong and policy based because it deals with copyrighted content; so, if the discussion is contentious enough that an administrator is unable to determine a consensus, then the side advocating keep has failed to sufficiently present their case. Maybe the time has finally come to resolve this one way or the other, but I strongly believe that the direct involvement of the WMF is the only way that will happen. It is, after all, the one who holds all the keys and actually has the ability to control what happens on Wikipedia. For sure, they allow us editors to discuss things and try and figure things out for ourselves, but the WMF is the only one that really can determine whether there will be a Wikipedia for us to edit tomorrow. Any discussion of non-free content which is too contentious to be closed should be sent to WMF Legal for resolution, and its decision should be final. This of course won't make everyone happy, but it would at least provide some clearer guidance as to what non-free content the WMF considers acceptable and allow us to adjust the NFCCP as needed. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly,

I think you deleted content from an article about Anne Ewing. I wish to discuss this with you. At the very least, I would like my content back - even if it is not published on Wikipedia. It was the result of 6 years of work and I don't want to loose it. I did not keep a copy since I did not anticipate loosing it as I have. Thank you. SDFeminist2.0 SDFeminist2.0 ( talk) 23:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SDFeminist2.0. I am not sure which specific content you are referring to. I didn't realy remove lots of content from the article; I just moved some of it around a bit to try and make things more in tune with Wikipedia's manual of style. I asked another editor named Jytdog to take a look at the article, so if you check the article's edit history you should be able to find everything that was removed by simply clicking on an older version of the article. The edit history will also show which editor made a particular edit. Jytdog did move some of the content from the article to Talk:Anne Ewing#Unreliably sourced, so perhaps what you're looking for is there. If want to discuss why this content was removed, just add a post right below Jytdog's to the same thread. If you want to know why something else was removed, you can start a new discussion thread on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you edited my sandbox. Music Video 123 ( talk) 10:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Music Video 123. The licensing of each image you see on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every image file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these file are commonly referred to as " non-free images". Non-free image use is highly restricted and each use of such an an image must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. One of these restrictions is WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace. For this reason and as explained in WP:UP#Non-free files, non-free content cannot be used in User:Music Video 123/sandbox. You can add internal links to non-free files if you want, but you can't display the files. If you have any further questions about this, feel free to ask as WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I pinged you at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#Two Sabrina Spellman files, where you commented, about the image I uploaded to replace the other image, now deleted. I am notifying you, just in case. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you uploaded a new image, but I'm still not sure that is NFCCP compliant per MOS:TV#Images. There is really nothing about Hart's appearance in character that is so different from how she looks in real life that a free image could not be used instead. There's no speacial makeup or costume per se, and simply showing her pointing her finger at a glass is not really something that the reader needs to see to understand that the character is a witch who cast spells. All of the content in the "Background" is unsourced and reads like a plot summary, which generally tend to be fairly OR-ish. If there was more critical commentary about the character and about why Hart was cast to play the role (for example, perhaps she looked a certain way, etc.) then it would make more sense to include a non-free image; otherwise, just using it in a subcsection of another article seems a bit decorative and unnecessary to me per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! New to Wikipedia article creation so thanks for the valuable input. I have replaced the image with one that does not include the artist's face. The first image File:Weaver Ive Honyestewa holding her Whirlwind pootsaya.jpg can be deleted immediately. Thanks again. Skistud ( talk) 20:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think you may have been overzealous in applying WP:SURNAME here. We usually do in fact give a forename for the first mention in the body of an article. After all, the lead is just a summary of the body. - Sitush ( talk) 12:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is correct say "usually" simply based upon the wording of WP:SURNAME, but then again it could be that the "initial mention" is meant to be interpreted as the first mention outside of the lead. Anyway, if you feel the edit is overzealous, then you can revert it. If another editor (I won't) reverts back, then it's probably best to discuss; if not, then perhaps WP:SILENCE can be assumed. Maybe WP:SURNAME needs a bit of clarifying since I've seen FA bios that do both and I tend to feel that inital mention includes the lead. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)