Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marchjuly (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 9 February 2016 (→Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Sheffield FC.svg: Slight tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

May '06–June '06 • July '06 • August–October '06 • December '06 to June '08 • July–December '08 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012-2013 • 2014 • 2015

Image Copyrights

Hi Peripitus. Thanks for your message. You were not mistaken, as the image I uploaded was not registered under Creative Commons copyrights. I have now obtained formal written permission by the photographer. How could I prove the image in case has sharing permission? Can I simply upload one with updated metadata? User:Ivan_Tanda (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

FFD close for File:Barbados Football Association.svg

Hi Peripitus. Thank you for helping clean up at FFD. I have a question about your close to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 December 13#File:Barbados Football Association.svg. Your close took care of the problem of there being two versions of the same image, but it did not address the problem of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. The .png image that was kept is now being used in both Barbados national football team and Barbados Football Association. Previous FFD and NFCR discussion regarding No. 17 have almost always come to the conclusion that usage of such an image is acceptable in the federation's article but not in individual team articles. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 65#File:FSU Seminoles logo.png, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Club Africain.png, Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 November 9#File:Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (crest).svg, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Sporting Clube de Portugal.png, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 69#File:Croatia football federation.png, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:USA Hockey.svg for just a few. My nomination statement included the sentence I don't think usage of either image satisfies No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI in the individual team article, so it should be removed from there regardless whether the .svg or .png is used.", but it was mixed in with the rest so perhaps easy to overlook. Anyway, I still think the usage of image is problematic in the individual team's article, but I'm not sure how to continue addressing that since the FFD discussion has been closed. Do I need to re-nominate the image at FFD to resolve this matter? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly: - good point....and now removed. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking another look. I also suggest adding a Template:Oldffdfull to File:Barbados FA.png to show that the file was discussed at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerns regarding a couple of closes on WP:FFD

Regarding your closing statement at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:Surprise surprise billy talent.png, FFD venue is no longer called "Files for deletion": it is now called "Files for discussion". Back in October 2015, the functionality of Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review was merged into FFD, which resulted in FFD being renamed. What Marchjuly presented above in their nomination was a concern that the file they nominated, currently marked non-free, may actually not be eligible for copyright in the United States (making it free), usually due to not being original enough to meet the threshold of originality. I implore you to consider FFD's new function, and adjust your close appropriately or reopen the discussion. (This concern also applies to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:Viking Death March.jpg.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: That seems an odd decision - I missed this due to a period of inactivity - but consensus is. NFCR was poorly trafficed, Ffd is usually even more poorly. I've rolled back my closure on these. I can't work out the point of these, and a significant number of other similar nominations. Either we have to make a judgement call and decide someone's work is PD, and we keep the image for it's current use, or we leave it marked as non-free, and keep the image for it's current use under fair-use provisions. Either way we keep the image. Simplest path to me is if we'd keep it anyway, and it's marked non-free now, move on and find something that will change things - Peripitus (Talk) 22:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peripitus. Just for reference the RfC/proposal for merging NFCR into the then Files for Deletion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 128#Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD?. Regarding these two particular files, I think there current usage is compliant with WP:NFCC; I just wanted to discuss whether they could possibly be converted to a free license. If they can be freely licensed, then they can be moved to Commons and their usage won't be subject to same restrictions as a non-free image. I think the reason nominations like this are sometimes made is because apparently it's the WMF's goal to reduce non-free content as much as possible. Sometimes files are uploaded as non-free out of habit, but they actually qualify for PD like File:TheBeatles68LP.jpg, File:Adolescents - Adolescents cover.jpg or File:Ebba Grön 1978 - 1982.svg. Anyway, if you feel that c:COM:PCP applies in either of these cases, then I have no problem with that and the files remaining non-free. I was just asking for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting discussion that one. @Marchjuly:. My default action in the past has been if I think it's definitely PD just boldly change the tag, if any doubt leave it alone. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I myself have only changed files to PD when they've been discussed and their is a clear consensus to do so. Otherwise, I just leave them as is as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ayers Rock (band)

Thanks for the GA on Ayers Rock both CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) and myself are proud of the work we had done there. As for the photo in the infobox: it is a colour, performance shot of the band with the line up at the height of their popularity. The alternative is a posed, static, B&W shot of a latter day line up with few of the original members left. In any case, as you've said, its not important enough to worry about now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar:. You are most welcome. It took me back - I remember listening to a copy of Beyond bought from a 2nd hand store - Peripitus (Talk) 06:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

FFD close for File:CUA Cardinal 2008.png

Hi Peripitus. I have a comment about your close for Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 January 4#File:CUA Cardinal 2008.png. My understanding of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI is that we generally allow the use of mascot logos like File:CUA Cardinal 2008.png in stand-alone articles about a university's athletic department/athletic teams (i.e., the "parent" article), but not in individual team/season articles (i.e., the "child" articles). See Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 December 5#File:UNLV Rebels logo.png and Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 December 6#File:CSU07athleticslogo.PNG for two recently closed FFD discussions about similar logos. I understand your NFCC#1 concerns, but there are pretty much freely licensed wordmark logos available for almost every major US university (for example, File:UNLV Athletics Script Logo.png and File:Cleveland State Wordmark.png for the other two FFD discussions), yet use of the mascot logo in the "parent" article is considered OK. For reference, many US university teams don't use their mascot logos on their uniform jerseys/shirts, but they do sometimes use them on helments or as a sleeve patch or stuff like that, so its not really surprising that the photo you linked to of the CSUs women's soccer team does not show the logo. If, however, you look at some photos of the men's (American) football team, you see the logo on the player's helmets. Administrators do have a bit of discretion when it comes to closes, but I thought I'd just point out that yours is a little different from what's been done lately by other admins. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Marchjuly:. I can see that they sometimes use the graphic, sometimes use the wordmark, and sometimes neither. I can't see any compelling reason either in the image's rationale or in the debate, as to why we should use this non-free image rather than the free wordmark. Perhaps other sports teams always use the logo. When the rationale states
  

The image is used to identify the organization The Catholic University of America, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

Then one image they use sometimes is clearly as good as the other that they use at other times. As to why other debates have been closed differently, sometimes I'm a bit more taken with the word free the site's motto than other admins, other times less - Peripitus (Talk) 05:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Sheffield FC.svg

Hi Peripitus. You closed Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Sheffield FC.svg as a "keep" for Sheffield F.C. only. You then removed the file from Sheffield F.C. Ladies, etc. and also removed the non-free use rationales for those articles from the file's page. The file has been re-added a couple of times to "Sheffied F.C. Ladies" article (along with a non-free use rationale for such usage) since then by SevcoFraudsters, who seems to disagree with the FFD close. Is there a way for an editor to re-open a previously closed FFD discussion which did not involve the deletion of a file, but rather only its removal from certain articles? Would WP:DCL#Challenging other closures apply in this case? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Marchjuly: In my opinion, the edit you performed to restore the removal of the file was most appropriate in action and the edit notice you posted. If they are adamant about not agreeing with the consensus, I'd refer them to WP:DRV. (However, the result of Peripitus' close will probably be WP:SNOW endorsed.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Posted on User talk:SevcoFraudsters#File:Sheffield FC.svg advising them of this thread and asking them to discuss the close with Peripitus. Their response was to re-add the file and rationale again, and state they continue to do the same in the future. I asked them once again to reconsider and discuss their concerns with Peripitus. Although, I think brightline can be claimed here and the edits reverted and that this could even possibly be brought to WP:AN3, I, at least, will wait a bit to give Peripitus the opportunity to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: @Steel1943: - I've left a note on their talk page to come here and talk, though I've left all relevant pages on my watchlist to see. Edit warring is such a bore. Hopefully this can be resolved with discussion - Peripitus (Talk) 11:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I have no objection to any further discussion of this. For reference, there's was no "sexism" on my part at all since there have been similar NFCR/FFD discussions where files have been removed from both men's women's articles for similar reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peripitus and Steel1943: There was something about the wording of this reply which reminded me of this post in a similar discussion made by Målfarlig!. There is also some similarity to the way personal attacks were used to refer other editors as having mental/psycological disorders by these two editors as well as the use of the word "spastic" in edit sums . Målfarlig! hasn't edited since they were blocked by Swarm here for edit warring and personal attacks, and SevcoFraudsters was created a few days later. I guess WP:CLEANSTART could try to be argued if these editors are really the same person, except SevcoFraudster was created while there was an active block on Målfarlig! and both accounts are heavily involved in editing (women's) soccer (football) articles. Any opinions on whether this is a case of WP:MULTIPLE? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: - you are probably correct, similar language and cheery disposition, similar edit warring, similar geography/interests. I'm minded to let it lie - either they don't repeat the warring that I can see in September/January and the good work they are doing continues, or they do. I'm hopeful of the former but not massively. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Anyway, it's out there now so and maybe something only really needs to be done if the Målfarlig! resumes editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

IP 90.213.63.36 making similar reverts. Possible WP:Duck? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)