User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2020/January

Update on File:Casper ten Boom roi.tif

I emailed the folks at CorrieTenBoom.com some days ago asking about the specific date the photo of Casper ten Boom was taken. Here's the email I sent:

Dear sir or madam,

What date exactly was this photo (https://www.corrietenboom.com/images/resize/thumb_tijdlijn-m46-1419340395.jpg) taken?

Thank you for your time!

- Jaden

I received a response this morning from one Frits Nieuwstraten with the Corrie ten Boom museum, and they said:

The date exactly is unknow, but it ws between 1890 – 1900
Kind regards
Frits Nieuwstraten

So, the question is: is that enough reason to upload here onto Wikimedia Commons under the Public Domain?

- Stinkyjaden (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

That might a something to ask at at c:COM:VPC. If that's when it was taken, then that would seem to make it old enough for it to be PD. It might be necessary, however, for the website to email Wikipedia OTRS to verify this since the photo might be considered to now be the property of the copyright holder's heirs per c:Commons:Transfer of copyright#Transfer through inheritance. So, if the photographer never transferred the copyright to the subject, then that would mean the photographer's heirs; if they did transfer copyright ownership to the subject, then that would mean the subject's heirs.

The file is probably OK as currently licensed for local use on English Wikipedia. I think {{Non-free biog-pic}} would be a better license with the corresponding {{Non-free use rationale biog}} used for the non-free use rationale, but even as is the file seems unlikely to ever be deleted. As non-free content, however, it will need to meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy each time it's used on English Wikipedia. Commons files aren't subject to this non-free content use policy and thus tend to be much easier to use on English Wikipedia; moreover, Commons files are global files which makes them much easier to use on other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as other language Wikipedias. You can try uploading the file to Commons, but I can't absolutely guarantee the file is never going to be nominated for deletion; so, before you do so, you might want to get some feedback from Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft review

I have created an article "Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest" which was initially accepted as article for creation but later it was declined by mentioning " Article is not written by neutral point of view" you are requested to go through the references and if you found anything that is not neutral let me know. Earlier in December, the same page was deleted due to copy right issue. Now,I have removed all the copied text and link and written in my own words. So please help me out.. Thanking you --Rohitmishra01 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think you've fixed copyright violation problems that led to the article's deletion last month, then you can submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. An AfC reviewer will look it over and assess it. If the draft is declined, the AfC reviewer should provide suggestions on what things need to be improved for the draft to be accepted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft

Hello Marchjuly, 1st of all thank you so much for your response. as you mentioned i can't add biography info into filmn article. actually i wanna make biography article of sunil Perm Vyas. so please guide me how can make this article and please guide me what are my mistakes and how can i avoid that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1Rudra1 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There's really no special secret to creating an article. You're going to need to establish that the person you want to create an article about meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), and the way that you do that is providing citations to which shows that this person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. If you can establish that such sources at least exist, then the draft will be accepted by WP:AFC; if not, then it will make no difference as to how well written the draft is or who you get to help you write it.

You posted at the Teahouse that you've submitted the draft multiple times before and it's been declined each time. The AfC reviewers who assessed the draft should've given a reason why they declined it. If you don't understand what those reasons are, you can always post a message on the relevant AfC reviewer's talk page and ask them to clarify. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. There's no limit on the number of times you can submit a draft for AfC review, and many drafts are declined multiple times before they are accepted. You can keep working on the draft and trying to improve, even if its only a little bit at a time, and then submit it for another AfC whenever you think it's ready and that you've addressed the reasons why it was declined. As long as you keep improving the draft and don't just keep submitting the basically same version over and over again, you'll be OK.

One thing that you might want to consider is that adding more and more content, particularly unsourced content, is not always a good thing. Some editors, particularly new editors, trying to create articles seem to think the the more content and the more sources they add to a draft, the better chance it has at being accepted. This is not always the case because it's quality, not the quantity, of the content and sources that the AfC reviewers are assessing. So, instead of trying to think of more things you can add to the draft, maybe you should try and think of what things you can remove. Focus on the main content that you think best establishes this persons Wikipedia notability and the best sources that support that content, and remove anything that's poorly sourced or unsourced. Many articles start as stubs that are slowly improved over time by different editors; so, maybe you should focus on writing a draft for a stub and getting that approved by AfC instead of trying to write a fully developed article with lots of details. Even then it might simply be too soon to create an article about this person at this time and you may just have to wait until they do things that lead to them receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Facebook Links

The Facebook pages for newspapers on the List of newspapers in North Carolina are good sources for Newspapers because they contain information about year established. They are official pages for the newspapers. Now that they have all been removed, it is going to taking a huge amount of time to convert the links to formatted {{cite web}} citation format. Any idea on how to do this as efficiently as you removed them? The picutres that you removed are already on other pages. Did you remove them from the other pages, too?

G._Moore (talk · contribs) Talk to G Moore 19:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Since your questions is in two parts, I'll try to answer them as such.

There are essentially two types of files you find used on Wikipedia: "freely licensed" files and non-free content. The first type are files which have are either considered to be within the public domain for some reason, or copyrighted content which has been released under a free license by their copyright holders under a free license that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts; in other words, these are files which have never been eligible or are no longer eligible for copyright protection, or are eligible for copyright protection but their copyright holder has given their permission to release under a certain type of license (you can find out more about this at c:Commons:Licensing). The second type of files are copyrighted files which are upload to Wikipedia under the concept of fair use. Wikipedia allows this to be done, but it requires each use of these files to comply with its non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive as explained here and requires that each use of a file meet ten non-free content use criteria. How a file can be used on Wikipedia is described in Wikipedia:Image use policy, but it basically depends upon how a file is licensed. The two files you added to the article are licensed as non-free files which means there use anywhere on Wikipedia is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The two uses of the file in the stand-alone articles about the newspapers themselves are uses which seem to comply with this policy. For such articles, it's generally considered acceptable to use a non-free image/screenshot of the newspaper's masthead/front page for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of the article since the entire article is about said newspaper. Not all types of non-free use are the same and just because a non-free file is used in one article does mean it's also automatically OK to be used in other different articles. There has to be a separate, specific non-free use rationale provided for each use as required by non-free content use criterion #10c. Since you didn't provide such a rationale for the two files you added to that list article, they were flagged for review by a WP:BOT and then subsequently removed per WP:NFCCE. If you think that the non-free use of each of these files in that particular article can be justified, then please add a rationale for each use to each file's page since that will stop the bots from flagging the files for review. However, just adding a rationale doesn't make a particular use non-free content use policy compliant, and in this case the way the files were being used wouldn't satisfy a number of the other non-free content criteria; so, I think you'd have a hard time establishing a consensus in favor of their non-free use in that article if the uses were challenged by another editor at WP:FFD.

Your other question about external links has to do with WP:EL and WP:NOT. Relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines generally allow external links to be added to article, but generally only to the "External link" sections of article and generally only when they are things that meet WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, or don't run afoul of WP:ELNO or WP:ELNEVER; so, if those Facebook pages are really the official websites (see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL) of these newspapers and you want to add them to the "External link" section of stand-alone Wikipedia articles written specifically about these newspapers, then you probably can. What you did, however, was add a bunch of embedded links to the body of a list article as part of a column in a table. This is not an article about one particular newspaper, but rather a more general article/list which has individual entries for lots of newspapers. This is a problem per WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:ELLIST because Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be online directories which provides a list of websites as part of information about individual entries. For the most part, the entries in a stand-alone list article like this are typically limited to only those subjects Wikipedia notable as explained in WP:LSC; this doesn't mean that entries which don't have Wikipedia articles written about them can never be added to such list, but at the same time it also doesn't mean it's Wikipedia purpose to serve as a host for external links to websites related to these particular article-less entries. Most of the entries that had Facebook links added to them also had citations to reliable sources provided for them as well. If you think these Facebook links meet the definition of a reliable source and want to reformat the links as citations and them add them to the article, then you can. However, citations to reliable sources and external links are not really the same thing and don't serve the same role in a Wikipedia article; so, simply reformatting these external links as citations just so you can add them to the article in some way might resolve the formatting issue of embedded external links but may create other issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Former radio station logos

@Marchjuly:

I appreciate your good-faith CSD and PROD taggings of the former logos of CKQQ-FM, but, with respect, I disagree with some supposed consensus is applicable to North American radio station logos. We have long included former logos in-line with the station's article, and it's not brought any copyright infringement lawsuits on Wikimedia, and won't likely. The likelihood is as miniscule as Wikimedia believes its "low threshold of originality" is a sufficient public domain criterion on the Commons, and the fact it has survived more than 10 years without an iota of issue suggests this isn't one.

I'm pinging Bearcat here for his thoughts, as he frequently edits, maintains, creates, and is otherwise familiar with North American radio station article guidelines.

In any case, since consensus can change, I do think the appropriate venue is probably the village pump for obtaining new, updated, and more specialized consensus rather than trying to apply a "broad strokes" outdated consensus (which was unreferenced) here.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve explained what I think is faulty about your above argument in the two currently ongoing FFD’s so I don’t think it’s necessary to further elaborate on things here. Things will be sorted out one way of the other at FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)