Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 15 June 2011

Your recent edits to Home Theater PC

I've restored the images you cut out. Of course you didn't bother reading the article since you would have seen the images were relevant there. So you can check of your box, I modified the fair use rationale on each image so that they include mention of the Home Theater PC article since each and every one of them was illustrating Home Theater PC software in use among others.

By the way, you reverted my edits while I was in the process of making the changes to the images that you could have just as easily done. So, please, in the future, help out.Mattnad (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See /Editnotice#NFUR It is your responsibility to ensure it has a rationale prior to using it in an article, not mine to write it. ΔT 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Delta is correct here: your images do not have a separate rationale for the Home Theater PC page as required by WP:NFCC#10c (you have them for the individual hardware pages); thus his removal is legitimate. This can be corrected by adding a second rationale for each non-free image for the use on the HTPC page. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... do you guys work in the DMV by chance? So your saying that even though the current rationale explicitly mentions Home Theater PC, I have to redo do a separate form? Below is the current AppleTV2 image rational.

{{Non-free use rationale |Article = Apple TV |Description = AppleTV 3.0 interface |Source = Screenshot |Portion = |Low_resolution = Yes |Purpose = To illustrate the latest AppleTV interface in the article dedicated to the product. Also used in the Home Theater PC article, which includes a section on Apple supplied Home Theater PC devices and related software. |Replaceability = The is no free equivalent that could illustrate the interface. |other_information = Included in the ] article which explicitly mentions this software platform and uses this image under fair use. }}

OK. I've now done repeated rationales. I hope this meet with your approval. And if not, how about helping out rather than just deleting?Mattnad (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be ok. The reason we require a separate rationale for each image use is a requirement of the Foundation, as each use should be for different purposes - otherwise images can be considered decorative and unnecessary. For example: here, one use is to show the device/interface for the Mac Mini article; the use on the Home Theater PC page is to show one example of a home theater PC device & its interface (specifically the Mac Mini) and some of the common features it shares with other products on the market. They are different reasons and why we want separate rationales. However, you should not expect Delta, or those remove the images, to guess on the rationale if it is lacking. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said... seems to be a very DMVish experience which is when there's a problem, they don't help you, even if the solution is easy and obvious to them. The "not my problem" response is why I suspect Delta gets grief for his or her approach to this.20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I could dispute all of the rationales that you duplicated. They are generic rationales that really do not hold much water. When writing a rationale the key thing is to explain why a particular file must be used in a particular article, and why its omission would be detrimental to that (that being the understanding of article). In your current rationales it does not explain why you must use the same image across three separate articles. It really only gives a reason for one article. ΔT 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Misplaced Pages "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Vandalism

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to CHRO-TV, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please review our non-free content policy, before re-adding files that violate it. ΔT 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at CHRO-TV, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InMontreal (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to check your facts. File:CTV_Two.png lacks a non-free media use rationale for CHRO-TV. Therefore the removal is appropriate. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive tried to tell them that but they dont listen. ΔT 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you removing a book cover image from the article regarding the book?

Jirel of Joiry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The image's rationale linked to Jirel of Joiry, but was being used on a non-redirected Jirel of Joiry (collection); the rationale needed to be fixed to point to the right place which I have done. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasons behind removing "non-free content overuse" on Commemorative_coins_of_Poland:_1999

Hi,

You wrote that the non-free content is overused.

I believe I took all steps necessary to fulfil Misplaced Pages:Non-free_content_criteria.

Could you please specify exactly what is/was missing, so that I could avoid any deletion in future ?

Article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Commemorative_coins_of_Poland:_1999

Thanks, Jakub— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupsztal (talk • contribs)

Reasons behind removing "logo" of Romanian national teams of football or beach soccer

there are all governed by FRF (Romanian Football Federation)! please be more careful— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyperuspapyrus (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)That might be, but all those images need for every single use a proper rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. Please update the rationales on the image description page before inserting the images. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the Pink Triangle Services logo

Hello. I thought the logo was within the fair use policy for an article on the organization (of which I have a history with). Is this issue that the article is currently only a user draft? And, if so what other steps are needed that I didn't take once it is an article? Sincerely Bygul (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Exactly, non-free files are not allowed in userspace (see WP:UP#NOTSUITED and WP:NFCC Policy 9.). Once the draft has been moved into mainspace, the image can be added back. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great thank you. My mistake. Bygul (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Film posters

You being the resident guru of strict interpretation of the fair use criteria, I think we could use your input on the question of the use of film posters in film articles. The editor Amadscientist has been indef'd for making (borderline) legal threats, but I think he has a point, as film posters are hardly ever discussed in the movie articles but are merely used as "decorations": ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

True, they are not discussed, however like logos they are the primary visual representation of the film and thus under the for identification purpose of the non-free content policy (the same way logos and book covers do). Side note (NOT wiki policy) These posters are used as advertisements for said films and thus are spread as far and as wide as possible by most production companies and thus they will never sue us. </end side note> That being said, those posters are how a large majority of people associate with the film (using a single image vs video) so the for identification clause of the NFC is fairly solid, I would be surprised, and wouldnt support their mass removals. ΔT 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the reasoning would be that they are an important identifying illustration, as with sports team logos, company logos, and the like; hence they don't have to be directly discussed in the article. Have I got that right? Also, I fully agree that the use of these small-scale logos amounts to free advertising and it's very unlikely a company would sue us for giving them free advertising. The issue raised by the blocked complainant has to do with "market value"; apparently the market value of the poster itself. That leads me to believe the guy is a collector rather than being connected with any studio. And his threat to "tell everyone he knows in Hollywood" to essentially "boycott" wikipedia is most likely a self-serving bluff. Thank you for your comments. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to both agree and disagree at the same time with you. :) I think our usage of Film posters is 100% correct, while our usage of logos is a little too excessive. Take a look at File:Abclocalradio.png its used on 44 articles. I think it should be used on ABC Television and that is it. However we (wikipedia) tend to over use the logo of a parent organization for every single child company if the said subdivision doesnt have their own logo instead of just a note like xxx is a subdivision of yyy and uses their logo for branding purposes because they do not have their own which would kill the over use of logos and also serve the same purpose. I would equate Film posters to book covers more than I would for logos. ΔT 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The book cover is a good analogy, especially as the cover of a DVD holder is often used for the poster placeholder in a film article. I don't really understand the concern about "over use" of logos from a policy standpoint, although one could argue that overuse might provide "too much" free advertising! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In a somewhat parallel situation, I've seen the use of "trailers" on youtube quite a lot, where the film itself is copyrighted. I suspect they can get away with that for much the same reasoning as with posters: That they are marketing tools, and hence are free advertising for the given film. Only someone with a self-destructive business philosophy would be likely to complain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, we did have a rather recent (last 6 months) discussion on cover art and consensus affirms that they are used for implicit aspects of branding and marketing of the published work, as long as the work is notable enough for its own article (hence why we don't have discography lists include cover art). Also, in regards to that guy's point on the commercial aspects, there's a reason we ask for low resolution images here, for respect of the commercial copyright - the image we provide cannot be blown up to poster-size and be appealing due to scaling artifacts, but yet large enough to be recognizable. (I will note, however, I do agree that I personally rather see cover images meet higher metrics, even if it is just used to identify characters, setting, or the like, rather than just placed there without further discussion, but that's not going to happen any time soon) --MASEM (t) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep on dleting my pic for Raja Ki aayege baraat!