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

Thanks for your swift appraisal of this page and your tweaks - much appreciated.

Re failed citation - thanks for the quick lesson! Will find a different way to approach this, I understand the problem now. I will link to a different source that connects Long and McManus. I'm assuming I'll be able to link the original source to a new statement that simply identifies Long as the Director of Naval Intelligence - does that sound better? I would like to bring Long into the story a little, as he is the key player in McManus' appointment and there is no Wikipedia article on him.

Re image copyright - thanks for your advice. The image is a Royal Australian Navy portrait from c.1940, certainly pre-1943. Its provenance is from the original 1946 edition of Eric Feldt's history 'The Coast Watchers." I have scanned it from that original text, which is signed by James McManus' mother and which I inherited as part of the McManus estate. It's certainly not just been pinched from the web! It is the only image I have of Tom (James) as the head of the Coastwatchers. I have a very young portrait of him (approx 18) - but it doesn't connect to the story so well. What do you think I should do?

Kitty ky ( talk) 05:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kitty ky. It might be better posting questions/comments such as these at Talk:James McManus (Royal Australian Navy) now that it's an article. Posting them here means that it's only likely that I will see them, whereas posting them on the article talk page increases the possibilty they will be seen by others either watching the article or interested in subjects like McManus. It will also make it much easier for others to participate in the discussion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool - will do when I get a tic. I've rejigged the section about R B M Long that had the citation that doesn't mention McManus. The citation now just supports the assertion that Long was the Director of Naval Intelligence - this shouldn't be an issue anymore hopefully. However I've left your meta-comment about a failed citation in place for you to make a ruling on. Cheers. -- Kitty ky ( talk) 22:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw on 23 April you removed this image from EastEnders saying its use in the article does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. That's fine, but I just wanted to check which criteria you think it failed because it does have a fair-use rationale for that page. Thanks. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 14:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally, non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed to be used for primary identification purposes per item 10 of WP:NFCI in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the person in question. I say generally since non-free use (even in such cases) is never automatic per se and in some instances a freely licensed equivalent image either already exists or can created and used instead per WP:NFCC#1. FWIW, a "free equivalent" doesn't mean a free version of the same identical image; it means another image sufficiently capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose.

When images (screenshots?) such as this are used in other articles, however, there tends to need to be a much stronger justification for non-free use than simple imdentification purposes. A non-free screenshot may be used to identify a critical scene, etc. which is the subject of sourced critical commentary within an article or other article content which is unlikely to be sufficiently understood by the reader without seeing the screenshot so as to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. This particular image was being used in East Enders#Conception and preparations for broadcast, but none of the article content in that particular section really necessitates that the reader see it to be understood and the image itself wasn't the subject of a sourced critical commentary. It appears (at least to me) that the usage more decorative than contextual, so I added the image to the Smith article where I believe its non-free use can be better justified. The file did have a non-free rationale for the show's article, but just having a rationale does not automatically mean policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE and "illustrates the an important part of the article" is basically another way of saying decorative use. There are images of each of the show's creators in their respective stand-alone articles where the reader can see what they look like so to speak, and there are links to each of those articles within the relevant section and the other textual content about the two's involvement in the show is (in my sufficiently) understandable without having to see the image, so I didn't see how WP:NFCC#1 could be met for this particular use. (Just for reference, textual content is considered a "free equivalent" per item b of WP:FREER). So, I was bold and added the file to Julia Smith where I believe its non-free use is acceptable, and removed it from the show's article because I believe its non-free use is not acceptable.

If you disagree with my assessment and feel that the non-free use in the show's article did comply with relevant policy sufficient, re-add the file. My suggestion if you try to do that though would be to try and clarify the non-free use rationale a bit so that it's more specific about the particular non-free use and (if possible) revise the relevant article content accordingly to reflect the reasons why the image should be seen by the reader. If you do this and I or anyone else still feels that the non-free use of the file in the article doesn't satisfy relevant policy, the file can either be tagged with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}} or nominated for further discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

it is a typo. it was a direct copy paste from the source. i just forgot to make change to fit wikipedia. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 10:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn’t directly copy and paste content from sources per WP:C-P because doing so is considered a WP:COPYVIO, except in the case of some short direct quotes which are properly attributed and supported by citations to reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are expected for the most part to read reliable sources and then reflect what the sources say in their own words. Even WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is not acceptable. — Marchjuly ( talk) 10:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

like i said, i just forgot to change it to fit wikipedia. the intention was to paraphrase. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 11:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying up my sandbox. My understanding (which is not always correct) of the use of non-free and even copyrighted images is that they can be used in parody. I write parody for the Signpost. Do you believe I have interpreted the use of these types of images correctly? Best Regards, Barbara  ✐   ✉ 10:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barbara. If the images were removed from your sandbox, then I'm sorry they cannot be used there per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files. Non-free content can only be used in the article namespace, so if you're working on a draft for a future article in your sandbox, it might be possible to re-add the files after the draft has been moved to the article namespace. Your understanding is correct if we're strictly speaking in terms of the concept of fair use; however, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been made to be purposely more restrictive that fair use for the reasons explained in WP:NFC#Background and it's Wikipedia policy which is relevant here. If you want other opinions on this, you can ask at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC; however, WP:NFCC#9 pretty much makes no exceptions for anything outside of the article namespace except for the pages listed in WP:NFEXMP. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

you have tagged photos on the jerry lewis page for deletion. do they violate copyright or reason? having photos of him over his long career is good for the article....substitute others? Anarchistemma ( talk) 11:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Anarchistemma. I don't think the screenshots comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, in particular WP:NFCC#1 (item b of WP:FREER), WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion) and WP:NFCC#10c ( WP:JUSTONE). Non-free screenshots such as those are generally only allowed when they are themselves the subject of sourced critical commentary in the relevant article. In addition, stating that the purpose of non-free use is "Not sure" or "None" or something along those lines is clearly not sufficient and basically an indication of decorative use. A non-free screenshot should be specifically tied into the article content, so that actually seeing the image significantly improves the reader's understanding of the relevant content so that omitting the image would be detrminental to that understanding. Lewis appeared in lots of movies, but the reader doesn't need to see non-free screenshots to understand such a thing. If you feel that more photos are needed for the article, then there's a whole category of freely licensed or public domain images in c:Category:Jerry Lewis which you should look at. Perhaps you'll find some suitable images there. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

i didn’t place them, i was curious if they violated copyright. thanks. Anarchistemma ( talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the logos may change with the seasons and they are not equivalent. Hzh ( talk) 09:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Hzh: While that might be true, non-free use of such logos in individual season articles is generally only considered acceptable for the first season a new logo was used, but not necessarily in any subsequent season per item 14 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFCC#3, even if the same logo was used. So, if as you say the logo was changed for then it's non-free use can probably be justified in that particular article; the non-free use in seasons 8 and 12, however, should not automatically be assumed to be policy compliant just because a rationale was added per WP:JUSTONE or because the same logo was used per MOS:TVIMAGE, and further discussion may be necessary at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 11:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Then remove the logo rather than replacing it with one that isn't the correct one, as it would be a kind of misrepresentation. Hzh ( talk) 12:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The logo I added was used in seasons 1 to 6 so I incorrectly assumed the logo continued to be used in subsequent seasons as well. Even if it wasn't, the similarities between the two logos is close enough that it could be considered a free equivalent for primary identification purposes and as freely-licensed content it would not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The Commons file was, however, nominated for deletion after I added it to those article; so, it's not clear if will ultimately be kept.

There are season specific logos being used for seasons 13, 14 and 15, so I am searching to see if there are specific logos for seasons 7 through 12 as well. Generally, if an individual season has been released on DVD/BR, then the cover art for that media can be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox, so that's what I've been trying to find. I found this for season 8 and this for season 9, but the quality is not very good (they are watermarked) and I'm not sure if it's the same show. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should be using WP:FFD instead of just unilaterally removing images from articles with out even attempting to make some type of communication on the talk page, especially as I don't believe you have any special admin powers. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I have any special admin powers, but it's you're responsibilit per WP:NFCCE to provide the a non-free use rationale if you are going to add a non-free file to an article. Anyway, I have added a more detailed explanation about non-free content use and why the files were removed to your user talk page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. First off, my apologies for getting frustrated at you yesterday. That was uncalled for. Secondly, after doing some browsing and coming across this discussion from 2015, I believe [1] can be added to 2016 IndyCar Series, as it is the first season the logo was adopted, assuming fair use rationale is added, of course. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 14:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Every editor gets frustrated and sometimes posts things they wish they hadn't. FWIW, I didn't feel offended and just figured that you were blowing off steam, especially after noticing you had subsequently removed some of your posts. As for the use of the file in that article, perhaps you are right; the best place, however, to try and establish that would be at the ongoing discusison FFD discussion about the file's use. Just for reference, I did mention that such a non-free use might possibly be considered justified in my original post on your user talk page, but maybe you missed it.

Also, given the timing of the various posts made at the time, it's quite possible you were adding rationales to the file's page or starting this thread on my user talk, while I was adding my original post to your talk page; this kind of thing happens fairly common when both sides are unaware of what the other is doing and actively editing at the same time. Just a suggestion for the future, adding the rationale first and then adding the file to an article sometimes helps prevent this type of misunderstanding. One last general thing about this type of image use, even sometimes when there are no non-free content issues at play or even when the image is a "free" image, the consensus may still not to be to use the file for some reason. Not saying that will be the case here, but others removed the file as well and they may have reasons for not wanting it to be used which need to be considered. Some WikiProject have their own guidelines to suplement community-wide policies (like WP:NFCC or WP:BLP) or community-wide guidelines (like WP:MOS or WP:N) when it comes to article content, image use, etc. These local policies don't supersede community-wide stuff, but they often provide a little more guidance with respect to certain types of articles.

One last thing, I just saw that you re-added the rationale for the 2016 article to the file's page once again. This rationale wasn't removed by me the first time, but another editor. Now that the FFD discussion is started, it would be best to try and resolve things there; so, if the rationale and file are subsequently removed again from the file's page and the article, then I would not advise re-adding either. Doing so is likely going to lead to accusations of edit warring (either someone accussing you or you accussing someone else), and possibly lead to both parties being blocked regardless of who's right. Best to let it be resolved via FFD; the closing admin will re-add the file and the rationale if that's what the consensus turns out to be. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

It took me ages to figure out how to put up my logo. What rationale do I need at this point? CR2 permits its use for Wikipedia. What's the next step to getting it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanmulhall ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Logos uploaded as non-free content do not require permission from the original copyright holder, but each use of the logo does need to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met each time a non-free file is used. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#9, which states that non-free content can only be used in the article namespace, in other words only in a Wikipedia article. As explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts, non-free content should be added to drafts after they have been accepted as articles and not before; so, there's really nothing you can do as long as what you're working on is still a draft. Once the draft has been approved, the file can be re-added. If, by chance, the file is deleted while the draft is still under review, don't panic and re-uploaded it again. Files which are deleted are not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view and such files can easily be restored at a later date per WP:REFUND is appropriate.

The only other possible option would be for the original copyright holder to agree to release their logo under a free licence accepted by Wikipedia. This means that they have to agree in writing to give there explict consent to basically allowd anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at any time for any purpose, including to use to make money. Since many companies are reluctant to do that with their logos, their agreeing to do so seems unlikely. If, however, you want to try, follow the instructions in WP:PERMISSIONS. If you have any questions about anything I posted above, please feel free to ask below. If you want another opinion, feel free to ask at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: MaryPoppinCaps ( talk · contribs) is getting feisty again, following your revert of their TPO violation. Now they've once again removed the thread at User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed) (after I had moved it to chrono order bottom of page). All this, after their WP:12RR violation at African vulture trade, and subsequent 31-hr block. Mathglot ( talk) 10:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, never mind; I see you attended to it in the interim. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 10:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw the additional reverts. I tried to explain why they shouldn't be doing this on their user talk page, but they blanked the page and then went back to removing the posts. As a result, they have been indefinitely blocked, and it's unlikely they will ever be unblocked unless they are able to convinve some admin that they are sincerely intend to pull a 180 and start being WP:HERE. FWIW, my guess is that they are student who got po'd about being told what they couldn't do on Wikipedia and then just decided to go out in a blaze of glory once their class project had finished. -- Marchjuly ( talk)

That makes sense, and I'm to the point where I can "smell" an imminent indef sometimes. I've been trying to be helpful with various students lately, and sometimes it's rewarding and they really appreciate it, but for the most apart, I see a gigantic, WP:NOTHERE problem that's like the elephant in the room that nobody at Wiki Ed wants to discuss. I'm still mulling over how (or if) to deal with that, but for the moment, I'm just getting more experience with the whole, student-advice thing. Anyway, maybe that's not a field of interest for you, but just thought I'd throw that out there. Thanks for your responses, and for all you do here. Mathglot ( talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem in general with student editors or even with the Wiki Ed members who try and help keep them on the right path. I do think trying to grade students for their Wikipedia contributions, however, creates situations where problems are likely to occur because it's only natural for most students to be more concerned about getting a good grade than complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also think that some instructors might not be very familiar with WP:NOT, etc. and see Wikipedia as a sort of a free online host where students can post their work. Anyway, If you want to make suggestions or discuss student stuff in general, then perhaps WP:ENB would be a good place to start. You might also find some good ways to help advise student buried in that noticeboard's archives.

As for this partciular student, it appears the issue was more of an off-Wikipedia thing with their instructor and the blanking was an attempt for them to try and get even. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, long time no speak. How are you? I have a question to do with WP:NFCC. Would it be a violation of the guidelines to use a non-free logo twice on the same page (eg once in the infobox, once somewhere else)? Thank you, Hashim-afc ( talk) 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's specifically not a violation to use a non-free logo more than once on the same page in and of itself, but usually using the same file is considered to unnecessary per WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#3a. A separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use per WP:NFCC#10c; moreover, the justifiction for the second use needs to be really quite strong so that simply referring to the infobox logo by name is not deemed sufficient. Just adding any old rationale is likely going to be a problem per WP:JUSTONE, so the rationale specifically needs to address the second use. FWIW, I don't recall any actual examples where such a thing has been allowed, but technically it might be possible. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I asked because this is currently the case on the Arsenal F.C. page. The logo is in the infobox and also in the Crest section as you can see. If the second non-free use rationale was added, would this use of the logo be justified? If so, I can add in the rationale. Hashim-afc ( talk) 12:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I would !vote "remove" for that particular second use of that infobox logo per WP:NFCC#3a. I have removed files being used for this reason before, and I don't think a consensus would be in favor of such use if the discussion ended up at WP:FFD: however, you can ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ or WT:NFC if you like. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you may be able to provide insight on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government#Stylistic question about capitalization of "independent" in an infobox. It's clear that "independent" should not be capitalized in a sentence (except if it's the first word), as is the usage in Independent politician, because it is a common noun and not a proper noun, like Republican. Should it be capitalized in an infobox or when it's abreviated in parentheses, i.e. Bernie Sanders (i) vs Bernie Sanders (I)? I look forward to your thoughts at the talk page, above. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)