User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2016/September

How I add National team logos ?

Could you teach me how I add National team logos ? I would like to add many National team logos. Please thoroughly teach me. Could you add any Photo, you add it. RKC_Vakwai (talk) 2:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi RKC Vakwai. I'm not quite sure how to answer your question because I'm not sure if you referring to uploading or adding the syntax of a file to an article, or determining the copyright status of a file. If you want to know more about uploading files or file syntax, etc. then please take a look at WP:UPI, H:IUI and WP:PIC. If you're more interested in copyright matters, then perhaps the following will help explain some things for you.

In general, there is no automatic entitlement to use any image we may find online in any Wikipedia article. We cannot just simply add a file to an article because we want to; we have to make sure that the image's licensing and usage is compatible with relevant policies and guidelines. There are basically two type of images used in Wikipedia articles: freely licensed images or non-free images. Freely licensed images are those which are in the public domain or which have been freely licensed by their copyright holders.

A freely licensed image does not mean the image can be downloaded from the Internet for free; it means that the copyright holder has agreed to release the image freely for anyone anywhere in the world to use as they see fit, even for commercial purposes, without needing to ask permission to do so. A public domain image generally tends to be a copyrighted image which was first created/published long enough ago so that its copyright protection has expired, a file released into the public domain by its creator, or a file which is too simple of a design to be under copyright protection.

A non-free image, on the other hand, tends to be something fairly new (within the past 70-90 years or so depending upon the author and the type of image) which are deemed complex enough to be protected by copyright and whose copyright protections are still considered to be in effect. It is because non-free files are still under copyright protection that Wikipedia requires each use of such a file to satisfy WP:NFCC. There are ten non-free content criteria which need to be satisfied for each use, so failing to satisfy even one out of the ten means that the image should not be used.

I could probably write much more on image use, but it would be much easier for you to read the policy and guideline pages I linked to above, see what you understand, and then ask questions about what you don't understand. You can ask them here, at WP:MCQ or even at WP:THQ and someone will try and answer them for you. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How are different of Emblem of CTFA (shield).jpg and India nation football logo.png ?

I see nation logo examples that you allow to add in wiki pages. I see and copy this logo to create India nation football logo.png but you don't allow my creation logo. What's different ?. I am very stuned. If you explain it, you can explain to me and type instruction such as for me to create logo

explanation step
step 1. click this " Click here to start the Upload Wizard " massage.
step 2. choose picture file in step 1.
step 3. type picture name and describe picture in step 2.
step 4. click this " This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." massage in step 3.
step 5. type article with use this logo under " This file will be used in the following article:" in space box.
step 6. choose this " This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." massage.
step 7. add picture origin link in space box of " Source: "
step 8. check space box before " This image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question."
step 9. explain How I use this logo ? under "In view of this, please explain how the use of this file will be minimal." massage
step 10. click upload button

You can explain instruction same me, Can't you ? RKC_Vakwai (talk) 9:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi RKC Vakwai. Uploading an image and complying with Wikipedia's non-free content policy are two completely different things. The fact that you can upload a file using the upload wizard does not automatically make the file's non-free use compliant with WP:NFCC. File:India FA.svg already exists so there was no reason for you to upload another version of the same file. The non-free use of this was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg and the result was "The result of the discussion was: keep in All India Football Federation, remove all other instances." Uploading essentially the same file just to add it to the national team article does not change the close of the FFD discussion, especially since nothing else has changed. The fact that other similar files are being used in other similar articles is not really relevant when it comes to non-free use. This is because each file is evaluated independently of the other since lots of non-free files are being used incorrectly or the particulars of their specific use are unique to that particular file. Each file is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria which requires evaluation; simply creating a file and adding a non-free use rationale does not make the rationale valid of the file's use OK. The administrator who closed the discussion regarding the India FA is Explicit. You can ask him to clarify his close if you like by posting something at User talk:Explicit#File:Iraq national football team logo.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussion. Could you teach me how is creation of nation logo instruction ? I would like truely creation step with admin allow because all articles, which you send it to me for reading, don't tell instruction to me. RKC_Vakwai (talk) 3:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jack Pearson (musician)

Thank you!!! Jackguitarfan (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File question

Am I right about this or am I wrong? The university seal should only be used in the university article, not a child entity like the law school? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Jo-Jo Eumerous might have solve this. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corkythehornetfan. I commented at the FFD discussion, but I think you are correct. The file actually fails WP:NFCC#10c and could be removed on that point alone if it is truly non-free, but I don't think this is something worth edit warring over so best to let the FFD discussion play out and to make your arguments there. FWIW, I also think it was good for you to bring the discussion to FFD, but perhaps notifying the other editor of it, just as a courtesy, would be a good idea too since you've already engaged them in discussion about the file's use. Doing so would cover all bases and nobody could then claim they were left on the outside looking in; moreover, this other editor might also be able to provide information regarding the image that is useful in determining whether it is in public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give them notice. I've moved on to other, better things now. They knew I ffd'd it, but I'll give them the link. Thanks again, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I've link the discussion to his talk page if he wants to contribute. In regards to the logo comment (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), the Law School's wordmark is already at the bottom of the infobox. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I think FFD/NFCC is something many editors simply do not think about when adding image file to an article. Many seem to just go by what they see in other articles and assume if it's OK for one article, it's OK for all. The other editor actually edited the file's page to say the file has a non-free use rationale, but did not add one for the law school as required by NFCC#10c. So, it is unclear how familiar they are with the 10 non-free content criteria let alone the stuff written in NFC#UUI. At least, those involved can now claim they weren't notified of the discussion. FFD will hopefully straighten things out. Finally, thanks for pointing out the "N" logo. I didn't scroll down far enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with you... I was one of those who just basically did what the other articles were showing until recently when you started FFDing files that were related to my work! Then I decided I should probably get familiar with the guidelines. Honestly, I don't think it really matters to the other user, just as long as he "wins". Thanks again for your help! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Vasas SC logo

Hi! You removed the Vasas SC logo (File:Vasac_SC.png) from the articles Vasas SC (women's handball), Vasas SC (men's water polo), Vasas SC (men's basketball) and Vasas SC (fencing) but not from Vasas SC (football). Why? All of those use the same logo because all of these are part of the sport organization Vasas SC. If you think it is against Wiki rules (WP:NFCCP), you should remove from all articles, but if it is appropriate for the football branch, it is appropriate for the basketball, handball, water polo etc. branches too. Vasas SC means all of these and not only the football club which owns the Vasas SC name here on Wiki. BR, vampeare (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vampeare. The file is non-free which means that each use of it has to satisfy all ten of the non-free criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria (more specifically one part of one of these criteria) is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use. The file has a non-free use rationale for Vasas SC, but it does not have a non-free use rationale for any of the other articles. So, if you feel that non-free use is justified for one or more these other articles, then you should add the appropriate the particular non-free use rationale for that use or uses. However, it is not clear whether using this logo in those other articles would be allowed per Number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If Vasas SC is the primary team/organization that uses the logo and the other teams are considered to be child entities of that organization, then using such a logo it the other articles is usually not allowed. This means that the rationales you provide should make it clear that this is the logo officially used by the other team or teams and if possible provide a link showing so that the team or teams uses it as their official logo, and explain that they are not child-entities of Vasas SC. You should also provide a source that can be verified. Something like the bolierplate text "The logo may be obtained from Vasas SC" which the template automatically adds when the uploader does not provide a source is not really sufficient. If you're not sure how to write a non-free rationale, you can ask for help at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. Finally, if there is a specific logo for a sport/team (for example, like perhaps this one or this one.) then you can usually use it without having to worry about No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI.

Anyway I hope I have answered your question, particularly why the logo wasn't removed from "Vasas SC". If you need more information, feel free to ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Okay that helped a lot. However, Vasas Sport Club is the whole organization, the Vasas SC football club is also a subsidiary of it (and the football club is actually using the Vasas FC logo which you mentioned.) The rules are quite hard, but I understand the importance of it. Thank for the clarifying! vampeare (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Edit sums can be hard to understand because there's only so much you can write and often links and abbreviations are used. Anyway, sorry if my edit sums were confusing. As for the Vasas SC thing, I am assuming that SC stands for sports club, which would be the parent organization for all the Vasas teams. If that's the case, then it might be worth considering spliting off the football content into another article titled "Vasas FC". That way you could use the SC logo for the SC article about the organization itself and the FC logo in an article specifically about the football team.

Another possibility is that the logo may be old enough to qualify as {{PD-old-100}}. If you can show that it was created prior to 1923, then it might OK to change the licensing from non-free to WP:PD. This would mean that the logo's use would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. The logo says "1911" and the team was founded in 1911 so if they've used the same logo all these years then it's likely too old to still be protected by copyright. Another option is {{PD-logo}} where the logo is not old, but too simple to be protected by copyright. If it's PD, it can be moved to Wikimedia Commons. It might be worth asking about this at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C.

Just some suggestions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha I found the logo in commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vasas_logo.jpg) with appropriate OTRS license so all of these discussions are theoretical :).

The logo is not 100 years old, in 2011, in the 100th anniversary the club refreshed the old https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vasas_SC.png logo which had the same issue and which had 3 times the non-free use rationale section. vampeare (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that does solve any problems with being non-free content. Now the non-free version uploaded locally to Wikipedia can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

St. Martin's Chamber Choir page

Hi there MarchJuly- You left me a message concerning the St. Martin's Chamber Choir page that I developed. I'm not completely sure how to proceed with it. I indeed do have a conflict of interest, which I declared. Much of the material is simply "true", i.e., there really isn't anyway to document it.

Concerning Timothy Krueger's bio, he is indeed a living person. The advisement reads:

"This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (August 2016)"

Not sure what additional citations could be provided. I would be pleased to have general suggestions. Or specific for that matter. There is nothing contentious in the material. I have added references for Mr. Krueger's two professional positions other than St. Martin's.

Notability: I might cite the 13 CDs, two of them on the British Toccata Classics label and the newly added host of world premiere performances. There are as many U.S. and regional premieres in addition, not included. St. Martin's 9/11 memorial concert was broadcast live on Colorado Public Radio. This statewide live broadcast was the first by CPR of a choral concert. This was world-wide if one includes Internet streaming.

I agree that some of the CD descriptions were not neutral in tone and I have eliminated some text and even more descriptive adjectives.

So with those explanations and changes, what would you suggest?

Gene McCullough (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Gene McCullough

Hi Gene McCullough. Notability for organizations is explained in general terms in WP:ORG and generally what is needed is multiple examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (secondary sources). Anything considered to be a primary source or trivial coverage might be useful in verifying certain article content, but such things are almost never considered sufficient in and of themselves for establishing Wikipedia notability. In general, simply putting out a CD or CDs or performing at various events does not automatically make a "band" Wikipedia notable as explained in WP:BAND except under certain conditions. Anyway, I asked another more experienced editor named Drmies to take a look at this at User talk:Drmies#St. Martin's Chamber Choir. He mentioned you in that discussion, but perhaps you did not notice it. Please take a look at his response and comment there if you like. It might be best to try and keep all discussion related to this in one place to avoid any confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Toccata Classics has an article and it may be a notable label--but that article is really not well developed; I urge In ictu oculi to improve it some. Gene, again, we need reliable sources to verify the information and to help make the case the subject is notable. "True" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. This is an encyclopedia, and we need secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

National team logos

Hi Marchjuly. Just wondering, has any progress been made on this issue since I last asked? I know you said you were very busy so I'm assuming there hasn't been much progress. If that's the case then I will start an RfC (even though I don't know how to do it but I will find out because this issue it has gone on for too long and needs to be resolved now). Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I started working on a possible draft poll question in my sandbox, but let myself get sidetracked with other stuff, both on and off Wikipedia, and haven't gotten back to it. If you want to take a crack at it then please do; it might actually be better for someone such as yourself anyway to make the RfC since you the issue seems to be more of an urgent matter to you. Anyway, my apologies if I dropped the ball on this. The intent was there, but my execution was a bit lacking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre

Thanks for your work on improving this page! I am staying out of the fight regarding the photo(s) of the demolition. The articles includes photos and they speak for themselves. I'd still like to see my photo on the page (I do think it's useful) but I'm waiting for an administrator to address it. 2601:442:C100:9A90:BDBB:663E:9A0C:A55C (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi 2601:442:C100:9A90:BDBB:663E:9A0C:A55C|2601:442:C100:9A90:BDBB:663E:9A0C:A55C. If you are by chance KIRTIS and just forgot to log in before posting (which seems a possibility because the only edit you've made so far has been here on my user talk page), then no worries. Just try to remember to log in before editing anything next time because Wikipedia policy is pretty much one account per editor, except under certain well-defined circumstances, and inappropriate use of multiple accounts can lead to being blocked from editing by an administrator. As for an administrator resolving the photo issues, your best bet is to make your case for inclusion on the article's talk page. Wikipedia content disputes are resolved through consensus established based upon relevant policies and guidelines. Administrators are basically the same as any other editor when it comes to content disputes and they do not get the final say, unless there is a serious policy/guideline which requires their immediate attention. Administrators can participate in talk page discussions like any other editor and help opposing sides achieve a consensus; they do not, however, unilaterally create a consensus themselves any more than you or I do. Therefore, you should continue to follow all of the steps listed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to resolve things through discussion. For reference, Wikipedia is not really about winning and it's not about righting great wrongs, so sometimes you have to be willing to just let things go because if you keep trying to force something to happen that the Wikipedia community is telling you should not happen, you run the risk about being labeled as an editor who does not listen and is unwilling to edit collaboratively with others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I started a discussion on the article's Talk page, but at this point the article has been stripped down and the relevant recent updates are missing. I will copy this post to the discussion page for the article. Yes, in my haste, I forgot to sign my post (above). KIRTIS (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reviewed the article again. I see that the section on "Current Status" was moved to the bottom. In my haste I had thought it had been removed. I should not have said it was "stripped down." I now realize that is not the case. My apologies. I will try to act more mindfully and read more thoroughtly before adding comments on Talk/Discussion pages. Thanks again. KIRTIS (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi KIRTIS. Please don't copy talk page comments from one page to another like you've been doing. Doing so creates a variety of different problems, not the least of which is that a post intended for a user talk page might not be appropriate for an article talk page and vice versa. Copying and pasting large amounts of Wikipedia content from one page to another is a bad habit to get into for reasons explained at WP:CWW and WP:ATTRIBUTION, etc. If you want to refer to a post on another Wikipedia page when discussing things, it's much easier and simpler to do so using a WP:WIKILINK.

As for the moving of the section, I did that for the reasons given in my edit sum here. If you would like to discuss the overall layout of the article, please do so on the article's talk page so that other editors can more easily participate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

RAF Boulmer imagery

Hi. Regarding the image of RAF Boulmer; you've tagged it for speedy deletion - not questioning the right to do it, I'm just wondering why? There's no mention of why it needs deleting in the edit summary or on the talk page ( where I would've expected a rundown of the reasons behind the delete status). Happy for this to go ahead (I'm not invested or anything) it would just be a courtesy to know why. Regards. Hope the day is going well in the Far East. The joy of all things (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi The joy of all things. I thought I added my reasons for nominating the file for speedy deletion in the {{rfu}} template I added to File:CRC Boulmer.jpg, but I'll repost them below for reference

It appears the photo of buildings, etc. are permitted exemptions to UK freedom of paranoia rules, so it seems as if a freely licensed equivalent of this image could be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free; simply not being able to locate such an image is not really sufficient justification for non-free use. Moreover, NFCC#8 is also not satisfied because the image is being used in a decorative manner within the body of the article, not for identification purposes at the top and nothing written in the article requires the reader to see this particular image to be understood.

I hope that clarifies things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely - I'm on the mobile at the moment and certain links are not working. No arguments from me and thanks for the clarification. Regards and I hope you have a good day. The joy of all things (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome and you have a good day too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)