Talk:Neon Museum

The article could be greatly improved by adding more information about the structure of the museum (staff, board of directors, funding...) There could also be more information about the significant objects in the museum's collection (told through both text and images).Srlerner (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Pictures of Neon Boneyard: One Image Move, and Two Copyright Violations?

I moved the Horse and Rider image out of the Boneyard section, as the sign is located on Las Vegas Blvd at Fremont (see [1], or use Google Maps). However, there's a more serious problem with the other two Boneyard images. The pictures of signs in the boneyard were taken during tours on private property. As far as I know, the Neon Museum has always had its current policy on photos, as found on its web site [2], which states "Photography strictly for personal use is permitted on our tours. Photographs cannot be published, sold, reproduced, transferred, distributed, or otherwise commercially exploited in any manner whatsoever." That would mean the photos fail Commons' requirements that pictures be available for commercial use. Any comments before I head over to Commons? Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum, but does not affect the copyright status of an image. If the museum's house rules were a valid contract, it would bind only the parties of the contract: the photographer and the museum. Wikimedia Commons and all other third parties are not subject to such a contract. Toohool (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's good to know. I definitely missed that when looking for guidance at Commons. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bing image of the day

The Bing image of the day links here. - Brianhe (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of copyrighted text

I reverted changes to the article because they are copyright violations from http://www.neonmuseum.org/about/the-collection/urban-gallery . I notified the IP editor, but in case it's a dynamic IP, I've also noted the problem here. There were other lesser issues as well: external links (such as the one to the Neon Museum website) should not be put into the body of the article. Lastly, a few small changes were made to the text of the article, but did not specify a source. I didn't bother to see if those small changes could be sourced to the Neon Museum website, as they were very minor compared to the rest of the changes. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited/contradicted changes reverted -- but maybe they are correct?

@Neon Museum Las Vegas: I found it necessary to revert your changes. Wikipedia requires that every change be backed up by a very particulzar kind of reference. The details are at WP:RS, but in short, you must cite a published source, which has a reputation for fact checking. No matter how much knowledge you may have, you must still cite such a source. Given all that, it's possible this user is indeed an expert, and the changes might be right -- maybe worth trying to find updated reliable sources.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]