| Revision as of 20:28, 4 June 2013 editWerieth (talk | contribs)54,678 edits →Tiger Brands← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:08, 5 June 2013 edit undoDiscott (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers13,120 edits →Tiger BrandsNext edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| *******I am not so sure of that interpretation of and feel that it is an overly strict and possibly pedantic interpretation of ]. I have no objections to adding information and references to the design in the article however I do want to discuss this seemly different interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 that we both have. I would also point out that the article on ] also has images of packaging prominently displayed with no information in the text on the visual design of the product. Indeed one could compile quite a list of product related articles where this is the case. I am trying to eliminate the possibility of this being the result of a ] which so often afflicts Africa related articles.--] (]) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | *******I am not so sure of that interpretation of and feel that it is an overly strict and possibly pedantic interpretation of ]. I have no objections to adding information and references to the design in the article however I do want to discuss this seemly different interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 that we both have. I would also point out that the article on ] also has images of packaging prominently displayed with no information in the text on the visual design of the product. Indeed one could compile quite a list of product related articles where this is the case. I am trying to eliminate the possibility of this being the result of a ] which so often afflicts Africa related articles.--] (]) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ********Its not any kind of bias, taking a look at ] it only contains two non-free files, which are of the packaging of subject of the article. ] is about a packaging company. Having their primary logo is all that is needed to meet the visual identification usage. If the individual sub brands are notable then they should have their own article where said file can be used. Lets further examine ], its parent organization ] has two non-free files, the primary logo and one that I will be re-tagging as failing ]. When using a non-free file you should ask yourself why must I include this file? and Can the reader understand the article without this file? Right now ] does not need ], it is just being used for eye candy. ] (]) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | ********Its not any kind of bias, taking a look at ] it only contains two non-free files, which are of the packaging of subject of the article. ] is about a packaging company. Having their primary logo is all that is needed to meet the visual identification usage. If the individual sub brands are notable then they should have their own article where said file can be used. Lets further examine ], its parent organization ] has two non-free files, the primary logo and one that I will be re-tagging as failing ]. When using a non-free file you should ask yourself why must I include this file? and Can the reader understand the article without this file? Right now ] does not need ], it is just being used for eye candy. ] (]) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *********That's a fair point.--] (]) 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * ] (]) 11:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | * ] (]) 11:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:08, 5 June 2013
Baseball in Puerto Rico
Werieth,
You did not respond to my last entry (5/31/13) re the Baseball in Puerto Rico photos. Here is it, below. What do you think of allowing 3 of the 7 images you removed? (the 3 are discussed below, in my talk entry of 5/31/13). Thank you.
- For all of them, I would say that they illustrate the specific material in the article. Each image (including every ballplayer) corresponds exactly to the text, with no commercial infringement or negative usage of the images. The three images I believe are especially pertinent are:
- File:LBPRC.png -- because an entire section is devoted to it. The article is about baseball in Puerto Rico, and this is the logo of their league.
- File:Satchel Paige.jpg -- because Satchel Paige's participation was a historic event in Puerto Rican baseball.
- File:Criollos de Caguas logo.png -- because it illustrates one of the major teams, and there is no commercial infringement or negative usage of the image.
Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- From what you are saying the images themselves are not important, they just illustrates something on the page that refers to the image. Also in each of those points you could just link to said other articles and not need the files. Werieth (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Keep up the good work cleaning up those NFCC violations! Technical 13 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) |
Spaces in templates
Hallo, I wonder what your basis is for edits like this, where you add spaces either side of every pipe and equals sign in a template. Is there any rule, guideline or consensus, or is it just your personal preference? If there is any rule or guideline, then the people responsible for the "cite" button should be told, as that button generates citations without spaces. I'm genuinely curious about this question - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Spaces_in_templates_such_as_.7B.7Btl.7Ccite_journal.7D.7D, where I raised it a few days ago, before your edit. PamD 12:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is no hard, fast rule. I do it for readability. The human mind automatically breaks text at a space. Trying to read a large block of complex text without them just gives me a headache if I do it enough. Similar to trying to read The Cambridge University Reading test Its do-able just makes things harder. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of fair use image
Hi. You deleted this image (File:Crozier, Edinburgh from Salisbury Crags.jpg) from my sandbox with this edit (as well as, rather oddly changing a number of my references). The image is in fact not in copyright and is now on the Commons with the same name. I wonder, do you know a way in which I can bypass the fair use version and access the Commons version and get around this problem?--SabreBD (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have adjusted the licensing issues so it wont be an issue again. AWB, the tool I used for removing the file cleaned up the references. It uses Named references to prevent duplication and excessive reference lists. Werieth (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I assume that means I can now use the file again in personal space. Much appreciated. In the use of AWB, it may be difficult to turn off, but it is probably not appropriate in a user sandbox, where there is work in progress. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings!
Hi! I was just wondering why my page was altered without my knowledge/consent? I understand there was some issue with the format, but what are the specifics here? Thanks. CarringtonEnglish T C
20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Several points, Please remove the Flag icon from your signiture per WP:SIG, two please fix the formatting. Three File:Red Rose (Socialism).svg is a non-free file and per WP:NFCC#9 it cannot be used on your user page, and that is why it was removed.
.svg){kind=link}
] ] ]
Werieth (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's been changed. I decided to go with something a little different. Thank you, though. Let me know if there's anything else. CarringtonEnglishTalk 04:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Tiger Brands
Hello, a quick question regarding images of products. I just want to get your thoughts on photographs of products with regards to whether or not they should be uploaded under WP:NFC? This issue seems to be an ambiguous one with some people, such as my self, uploading it under WP:NFC licence and others uploading them under a creative commons licence.
Additionally I am going to re-add the picture of Jungle oats boxes as I feel that it does adhere to WP:NFC#8 but will for the mean time not re-add the others. Additionally I maintain that all images that you removed adhere to WP:NFC#8 by significantly increasing readers' understanding of the company and its staple of brands by illustrating those brands in the same way other pages such as Quaker Oats Company. It seems arbitrary that some companies, most notably Western ones, such as Quaker Oats can illustrate their products whilst equally well known brands in their own countries, such as Jungle Oats, can not.--Discott (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lets break this down by image. You cited as a example page. It contains exactly two non-free files. The main logo and a single product example. Tiger Brands has 7.
- File:Lucky Star Fish.jpg
- File:TNT popcorn.jpg
- File:Jungle oats enegry bar.jpg
- File:Energade bottles.jpg
- File:Koo can.jpg
- Those are all hidden in collapsed columns just listing the associated brands. Thus failing WP:NFCC#8 second clause. See also WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE
- That is what I thought your concern was and I am not so sure of how important the issue of whether or not it should be treated is or if it does in fact means that it qualifies as a fail of WP:NFCC#8. Perhaps this is an issue that we should get other opinions on or find some precedence?
- WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE are in fact fairly clear about not allowing this usage. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- So if I were to get rid of the drop down so that the text was clearly shown that would make it acceptable?--Discott (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE are in fact fairly clear about not allowing this usage. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is what I thought your concern was and I am not so sure of how important the issue of whether or not it should be treated is or if it does in fact means that it qualifies as a fail of WP:NFCC#8. Perhaps this is an issue that we should get other opinions on or find some precedence?
- Those are all hidden in collapsed columns just listing the associated brands. Thus failing WP:NFCC#8 second clause. See also WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE
- File:Koo Logo.jpg
- Same as above just not collapsed.
- File:Jungle Oats 1930 & 2010 box.png
- There is zero sourced cometary about either part of that image. Without sourced cometary how can it pass #8?
- I am a bit confused, there seems to be source cometary about both parts. Perhaps I was not clear when I wrote it. I have now made some adjustments to clarify on the photograph.--Discott (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- For me the file is floating under the infobox next to the sections labeled "Adcock Ingram Critical Care" and "Brands" at that point its not being referenced by the text. Werieth (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't take this the wrong way but I find that a bit pedantic.--Discott (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Talking a look at the article text there is one sentence about Jungle Oats Tiger Brand's first product was a breakfast oatmeal brand called Jungle Oats There are zero sources about any visual design, and nothing about the changes in the 2010 version. That just isnt enough to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am not so sure of that interpretation of and feel that it is an overly strict and possibly pedantic interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. I have no objections to adding information and references to the design in the article however I do want to discuss this seemly different interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 that we both have. I would also point out that the article on Twinkies also has images of packaging prominently displayed with no information in the text on the visual design of the product. Indeed one could compile quite a list of product related articles where this is the case. I am trying to eliminate the possibility of this being the result of a Misplaced Pages systematic bias which so often afflicts Africa related articles.--Discott (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its not any kind of bias, taking a look at WP:NFCC#8 it only contains two non-free files, which are of the packaging of subject of the article. Tiger Brands is about a packaging company. Having their primary logo is all that is needed to meet the visual identification usage. If the individual sub brands are notable then they should have their own article where said file can be used. Lets further examine Twinkies, its parent organization Hostess Brands has two non-free files, the primary logo and one that I will be re-tagging as failing commons:COM:TOO. When using a non-free file you should ask yourself why must I include this file? and Can the reader understand the article without this file? Right now Tiger Brands does not need File:Jungle Oats 1930 & 2010 box.png, it is just being used for eye candy. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's a fair point.--Discott (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its not any kind of bias, taking a look at WP:NFCC#8 it only contains two non-free files, which are of the packaging of subject of the article. Tiger Brands is about a packaging company. Having their primary logo is all that is needed to meet the visual identification usage. If the individual sub brands are notable then they should have their own article where said file can be used. Lets further examine Twinkies, its parent organization Hostess Brands has two non-free files, the primary logo and one that I will be re-tagging as failing commons:COM:TOO. When using a non-free file you should ask yourself why must I include this file? and Can the reader understand the article without this file? Right now Tiger Brands does not need File:Jungle Oats 1930 & 2010 box.png, it is just being used for eye candy. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am not so sure of that interpretation of and feel that it is an overly strict and possibly pedantic interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. I have no objections to adding information and references to the design in the article however I do want to discuss this seemly different interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 that we both have. I would also point out that the article on Twinkies also has images of packaging prominently displayed with no information in the text on the visual design of the product. Indeed one could compile quite a list of product related articles where this is the case. I am trying to eliminate the possibility of this being the result of a Misplaced Pages systematic bias which so often afflicts Africa related articles.--Discott (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Talking a look at the article text there is one sentence about Jungle Oats Tiger Brand's first product was a breakfast oatmeal brand called Jungle Oats There are zero sources about any visual design, and nothing about the changes in the 2010 version. That just isnt enough to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't take this the wrong way but I find that a bit pedantic.--Discott (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- For me the file is floating under the infobox next to the sections labeled "Adcock Ingram Critical Care" and "Brands" at that point its not being referenced by the text. Werieth (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am a bit confused, there seems to be source cometary about both parts. Perhaps I was not clear when I wrote it. I have now made some adjustments to clarify on the photograph.--Discott (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is zero sourced cometary about either part of that image. Without sourced cometary how can it pass #8?
- As for the free files on the example page, I have noticed that some of them are pictures of products. Does this mean, as I asked above, that I can resubmit these files under a free licence since I took the photographs?--Discott (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, due to copyright issues. See commons:Commons:Derivative works. File:Quaker-Oats-ChocChip-Granola.jpg is just that of raw food, and cannot be copyrighted as that particular food stuff fails commons:COM:TOO (there was no human input in the visual design of the food, it is just the result of mixing ingredients together with a non-uniform result). Werieth (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. These pictures are most similar to File:Quaker7297.JPG which seems to still have an unclear status in this regard.--Discott (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, due to copyright issues. See commons:Commons:Derivative works. File:Quaker-Oats-ChocChip-Granola.jpg is just that of raw food, and cannot be copyrighted as that particular food stuff fails commons:COM:TOO (there was no human input in the visual design of the food, it is just the result of mixing ingredients together with a non-uniform result). Werieth (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- As for the free files on the example page, I have noticed that some of them are pictures of products. Does this mean, as I asked above, that I can resubmit these files under a free licence since I took the photographs?--Discott (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
