Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 30 July 2013

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

talkback

Per your recent edits

Recently you edited List of people from Chicago and replaced several en dashes with hyphens. I'd ask that you review WP:DASH, specifically the section "In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through". Hyphens are only used with numbers when connecting that number to a word, like 9-millimetres. Cheers, --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I didnt convert anything to hyphens. – (&ndash ;) and – are the exact same thing. just like &(&amp ;) and & Werieth (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

True enough, which is why the Manual of Style prefers the coded 'en dash' to just using the symbol (–). Makes it easier to distinguish correct usage. Is there a reason you converted the code that I should be aware of? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Its just part of Unicodifing articles as I edit them. Mixing HTML encoding, hex encoding, and normal chars just gets complex over time. Standardization is just easier. Werieth (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I have been told by multiple editors during article peer reviews that the consensus is to use the html code for en dash. WP:Dash seems to support this consensus. Do you know of any consensus that counters this, which I can refer to; or is this just your personal mission? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

??

Forgive me but I thought you would talkback to me. I'm now depending on your advice and guidance. SonofSetanta (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Crest of the Royal Ulster Rifles.jpg I havent had time to do the research. But can you confirm somewhere via a RS that that exact emblem was used 100 years ago, and that it hasnt changed since. If you can document that, copyright shouldnt be an issue. Werieth (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all in the article. That particular badge in silver is actually the Royal Irish Rifles cap badge. The Royal Irish Rifles ceased to be in 1921 upon the partition of Ireland and although all it meant in practice was a name change, the badge changed from silver to gold.

It's not just about that though. I had a list of things I was sorting out and wanted your feedback. I'm getting a little peeved at things like File:UDR Service Medals.JPG. The veracity of the "self" licence has been called into question and the image nominated for deletion. I can't upload the new image (taken two or three days ago) because the facility isn't open to me on the page. So I sent it to permissions last Friday and that hasn't been registered on the image page yet. What I'm worried about is that the image will get deleted and I will need to post the new image to replace it, then somebody will get on my case for not doing things according to protocol. That's just one of two or three issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For File:UDR Service Medals.JPG there are two separate copyright issues here. There are your rights as the photographer and then the copyright of what you are photographing. You can release your part of the copyright but you cannot release that of the subject of the photo. In this case you cannot claim self, because you didnt create the entire contents of the photo. Werieth (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so really these fall into the Open Government Licence as detailed by me on the image talk page? If that's the case would you like me to update the licence for this image and the others I found? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Im not saying that either, Im not sure what license they would fall under. Does the Open Government License affect works retroactively? otherwise it wouldn't fall under that category. I really don't have the time nor the interest in tracking down and verifying copyright for every one of your images. Unless you can provide provenance for the copyright of an image proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the image is under a free license, assume that its copyrighted. My best suggestion for you would be to ensure your I's are dotted and your T's are crossed, and all your ducks are in a row before you upload any image. Werieth (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the retroactive status of images under the Open Government Licence. What I do know is that images of these medals can be found at http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/ and that they are specifically tagged as having an Open Government Licence. I don't have the time or interest in this either but as you and I had agreed to work together to "educate" me on copyright I thought I could depend on you for answers - or are you now saying you don't want to help? For my part I am keen to comply with the correct licencing of images and there are barely any issues with those I have uploaded in recent times. The issues arise from earlier posting when I was less aux fait with the guidelines. So yes, my i's are dotted and my t's are crossed and all my ducks are in a row but I'm not a copyright expert - you are (or so you say). In any case; given that File:Conspicuous Gallantry Cross obverse.jpg (also on the defence imagery website) is under open licence and that website informs me that all its images are, I will now update those image pages I have identified as incorrectly licenced. I don't have the time or interest to do so but I will - because it's the right thing to do! SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 Madhubala Images

Hello thank you for your help and advice. Having reviewed the Non-free image critera and image uploading policies , could you possibly guide me more specifically how these images dont meet requirements, because as far as I understood they are usable for the following reasons:

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement).

Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Misplaced Pages. Content.

One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder A copyright tag that indicates which Misplaced Pages policy provision is claimed to permit the use. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Moreover Madhubala died in 1960. All of the photographers and people associated with her generation of film making are also dead. Where screen caps were used i took them form tailers and created themsleves, and other images are in the public domain unless stated, used in a variety of sources, be it, TV, print (books and press) and web pages.

Please understand i am not challenging you. Only trying to gain a better understanding of how they did not meet the criteria given the above, and what i need to do to make them usable as I feel the greatly enhance the articl and validate and add to points made in the body of the text. Thank you again for the trouble you have taken to keep Misplaced Pages proffesional and to a high standard. I look forward to hearing form you

Kind Regards

Nav Navsikand (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a free image of her, making barrier for including additional non-free files even higher. WP:NFC defines how we can use non-free media. Most of the files failed either WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8. The usage of non-free media on wikipedia is extremely strict. With a free image WP:NFCC#1 also comes into play. Werieth (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Madhubala images, response

Thank you for your response. However I am even more confused. The image that you left as acceptable, is a screen shot from a film. Two of my images were also screen shots. Regarding the images failing on both points WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8, that is simply not applicable to these images: re Minimal useage , the images are not just images of Madhubala for identification. They are there to support the text on specific points (ie, break through role in a film, most significant film role, appearance on Magazine covers underlining popularity, iconography through postage stamp issued on her etc, rare public appearance, her gravestone which has been demolished etc) Re minimal extent of use, I purposly chose low resoloution and cropped images.

Contextual significance is also supported by the above points. They are all there not just to show a photo pf Madhubala but are relevant to specific points made in the text. I would request that you read the article to see the relevance of the photos I attached to it. Consequently, I really dont see how the images fail on either point at all when they are not placed randomly rather to illustrate and source specific points made in the text.

As far as the point on "No free Equivalent" you cannot generalise or equate a screen shot of madhubala's face with a photo of her on a magazine cover, her grave, a commemorative stamp, photo with her spouce etc. In view of all this, and when comparable images are rife on wikipedia on pages for Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Joan crawford etc, I see no rationale for excluding any of these contextually relevanent images that support the article. I would respectfully request that you reconsider, or provide further justification?

Thank you Navsikand (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets take a look at the three examples you quote: Bette Davis Only has 1 non-free image. Same with Katharine Hepburn. Joan Crawford has zero non-free files. In three articles you cited there are a total of 2 non-free files. So in three articles we have about 50 different files and only two of them being non-free. Madhubala had about 13 files and 12 of those where non-free. Please review WP:NFCC#8 an image of someone's grave stone just isnt significant enough to justify a non-free file in most cases. Most of the files you included make the article more visually appealing, but are not required to understand the article about the person, especially given the fact that there is a free image of her. Werieth (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When I sited Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis etc I was talking about WHAT the images are and the CONTEXT of them, not wether they are free or not. This was the comparison. Misplaced Pages does have a fair use policy and I have already demonstrated these images I uploaded meet the criterion for fair use as well as how they do not fail to meet points WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8l as you asserted earlier. Your saying theres an issue with why the images are there and their significance /context yet you have no issue of Bette Davies having a photo of her death memorial, a photo of katharine Hepburn in "break through role", famous role, later life etc... All comparable images I uploaded for Madhubala.

In brief then : You said the images were removed because they fail on both points WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8 which i have shown they do actually meet these points as well as Wiki fair use policy. Then you have said it is becasue their is a free image of her which is equivalent to them. I have also shown the images are not equivalent because they demonstrate and further source key points in the article, rather than just showing a potrait of Madhubala. Lastly you questioned contextual significance without reading the article it seems, yet similar contextual photos in other articles are acceptable to you? Am just confused why its one rule for some and another for others? 92.21.202.99 (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Contextual photos when free are fine, when they are non-free is when the issue arises. Take a look at Johnny Depp he has had some very major roles and several very defining visual styles but because they are non-free we dont use them. Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy is actually far more strict than fair use, these uses may pass fair use but do not pass the non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)