Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 8 August 2008

*Unless otherwise requested, I will usually respond on this page. If applicable, please include links to the pertinent page(s). I consider WP:DTTR required reading.

· Archive 1 (11.2007–01.2008)  · Archive 2 (02.2008–04.2008)  · Archive 3 (05.2008–07.2008)  · Archive 4 (08.2008–present)

Dispatch query

Here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I had no idea these things existed. What's the desired length and detail? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You had no idea they existed? They ruin my life (those darn deadlines every week). See {{FCDW}} for past samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't didn't read the dispatch.  ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

EC, see User talk:Karanacs; any chance you'd be interested in doing the Dispatch of August 11 instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of town all of August, so anything I'd write would be largely completed this month anyway. Slot me in whenever. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need to cover for Karanacs, and it's an important topic. If you can give us a basic tutorial, maybe even I will learn :-) How about you write it now at WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008, and I can have others polish it off in your absence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been "struggling" thus far, as I'm concerned it will get too detailed too quickly (such is my nature) and/or turn into a rehash of existing image policies/guidelines. I'm almost debating whether it would be best done in two parts (e.g. one about free use images and one about fair use images) or just take the form of "common mistakes/things to look for". Thoughts? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My sense (which could be wrong, not sure), is that there are generally two different groups of editors looking at the two different kinds of issues, with you basically as one of the few editors who looks at both. If that's true, I'd say split it into two Dispatches. If it's not true, or not optimal, one tutorial. What if you write one, and we split it if needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I dumped in what I had thus far (I missed removing a few notes to myself - ignore those); let me know if it's too technical, wrong direction, usw. or any other comments/concerns/feedback. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to look at it when I'm refreshed (which I'm not now, end of the day); I'll look at it tomorrow. Don't worry at all if it's going the wrong direction, because Tony and others really tweak the Dispatches until they shine. Just chunking in the content is the best way to start. I'll look tomorrow. Thanks so much Ec. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)\

No problem. Maybe one of your loyal talk page readers will chime in. I don't think I have readers. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

tehehe ... sometimes I have to leave home to have a quiet conversation :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony... (although he took out my "Russian" note; I needed that to remind me that the wording was sappy). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 'cos I don't really understand Russian... Sorry! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I had my first quick look. I don't think you know how low Dummies 101 is in this case :-) If you can take me from where I am now (I understand NONE of it) to where I need to be, Your Mission Will Have Succeeded :-) But you have to really crank it back a notch for me. Sample screenshots would help, along with step-by-step, first go here, then look for this line that says X, if it's not there, then next do this and read that ... and so on ... flow chart style for dummies ... where to start reviewing images ... what big glaring things to look for that anyone can spot ... links, links, links to all those miserable acronyms. I suspect there are many editors like me who don't even know where to start. Plenty of time, Aug 11 is a ways off, and I'm a good test audience :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's what I needed to know. Thanks! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it later <sigh> ... sheesh, I literally spent almost all of my editing time today dealing with Miss Ima, a perfectly compliant article. I like to review FAC at the end of the day, when I'm relaxed and can focus exclusively on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Example

Another example for you at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory on Image:Louis B Stewart Observatory.JPG re licensing. Now, here's what happens when I try to sort this, after the nominator says that "SimonP fixed the tag on the one image":

1. Let's leave aside that I don't know how I was supposed to know that the image is "using a deprecated license that explicity should not be used (emphasis in original):; that's a whole 'nother story. I'm just taking it from how I could verify that it is actually fixed, after the nominator says it's been fixed by SimonP.

2. I go to Image:Louis B Stewart Observatory.JPG and find there is no article history tab, so I have no idea why the nominator says it's been fixed. Who knows why images have no history tab or how I figure out the image history. But I do find that it was uploaded by someone named Dodo, even though it is later said that the picture was taken by SimonP. Don't know what that's about or whether it's an issue.

3. I eventually figure out that this is a copy of an image at Commons. Never mind that I don't know how or why we have the same image in two places, or why we're using one on en.wiki when we have one at Commons, I figure out that I probably have to go to Commons.

4. Ah, so I find a history tab at Commons, and find that SimonP recently changed from {{GFDL-user-en|SimonP}} to {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. Let's set aside that I don't know what either of those are or how I would determine if they're valid. The next problem is that my favorite image reviewer said that the license needed to be replaced with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers}} or {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}}, and that's not what I see. So I don't know if the image is clear or not.

So ... bottom line is that I need for a trusted image reviewer to clear images, because there are a gazillion steps along the way that make no sense to me. Can the tutorial take me through all of this? (I doubt it :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I think you just needed to look a bit closer for this one. Look at the red box between the copyright tag and "File history" header.

I'm looking; was that there when I was there before, because I don't remember it. It has four terms and templates that I don't understand and would have to study up on before I even know what they are. So I'd already be stumped. I don't know what those templates mean. Can the tutorial give me an index? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those boxes are part of the copyright tag itself; they only disappeared when SimonP updated the license. In a way you might be over complicating things. You don't necessarily need to know what a copyright tag "means"; in this case, you'd only need to bring up that the license is indicating it's deprecated. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

2. There's an uploader/author discrepancy because the image was originally uploaded to en.wiki and later transferred to the Commons (someone other than the author - Dodo - made the transfer, thus they are the Commons uploader). If you look at the log of the original en.wiki version, you see SimonP was indeed the original author and uploader, so things are kosher.

So, who is Dodo and by what magic did you find that log? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who Dodo is. Some folks use their Wiki time to transfer images (after all, policy recommends all free images be on the Commons). The Oliver picture I took, for example, was transferred by Boricuaeddie. I've never heard of them. When you're in user space, the "toolbox" section (second under the search box) has a "logs" link. Just choose "all logs" and enter the image name (e.g. Image:XYZ.jpg) in the "Title" field. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Look just below the image itself; there's a template indicating the image is transcluding from the Commons. The en.wiki page doesn't actually exist, thus the red image and discussion tabs, "lack of history" (logs are still there), etc. Think of it like two transparencies on an overhead projector; if one is blank (local en.wiki page), it doesn't impact the display of the contents of the other (Commons page).

Oh, so it's a transclusion. But since there's no edit history and I can't view the page in edit mode, I guess I have to be a member of the Secrety Society to figure that out :-) You see, how many of us editors know none of this, which explains why we can't review images at FAC? The tutorial really has to aim at the Dummies 101 level. When I was first reviewing FACs, my idea of an image review was "click on the image, see if the pictures are on commons, if so, images are fine". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the "description page there" link in the "Commons" template, you can see histroy, edit mode, etc. just as you do on en.wiki (no mop or Commons account needed). If that's the impression folks have of image review, that would explain a lot... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

4. The new license is ok. It's a lot of typing to explain, so let me know if you need/want the full explanation. This is a rare circumstance (the disclaimer stuff). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't need for you to explain all of this to me; I went through the example so you'd see just how low the Dummies 101 level is, where the Dispatch needs to aim, and why I can't promote articles until a knowledgeable image reviewer has checked them. So that article is OK now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this image is fine. Can I abstain? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

oh, man, now you're killing me :-) That's why you're the best. Well, anyway, I'm displaying all my ignorance so you'll understand why I hate image review, and hopefully so you'll see how low you have to target the Dispatch. It needs to aim for a really basic level if the community is ever going to be able to help out on this, and I seriously doubt that I'll ever get there. I may be the stupidest image reviewer on Wiki, but I suspect that there are quite a few close to my level. Images give me an old dog, new tricks complex. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really just a twist on old tricks. The long and short of it - and this is why I've said image reviewing isn't that bad - is that, at the end of the day, all you're doing is checking that the copyright tag exists and that the information present corroborates the tag chosen. It almost boils down to a source check. Whereas Ealdgyth, for example, checks that the source itself is reliable, image reviewing is a check that the source (or details like resolution, etc) says what the tag says it does (e.g. when the tag says the author has been dead 70 years, it had better have a source that says exactly that). The dispatch is far from complete, so I'll try to do future sections as walk throughs; keeping it broad enough to be widely applicable, however, is a challenge. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And remember to say what you just said (above) in the Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Review

I know I'm a tough customer since I don't get it with images. Sorry to drag you through the 64,000 dumb questions.

The first "jargon" link I dig around in and try to decipher is non-free content. I roughly gather that "non-free" is some subset or has some relationship to Fair Use, but I don't get a clear, simple definition of the term up front (I come to it eventually, but I'm struggling in the lead). I intuit the "free" is related to public domain while "non-free" is related to Fair Use, but I wish I could get a one-sentence summary right up front of what Wiki means by "free" and "non-free". I find this info at the end of the second section: is there any way to excerpt some of those basic concepts sooner, to the lead? Otherwise, the lead paragraph is clear and easy to follow.

Since this Dispatch is focusing only on "free" images, that split (and a future Dispatch) could be made clear in the opening (a future Dispatch will deal with ...). Is it true that non-free can't be hosted on Commons? So does this Dispatch apply only to Commons? How does that flesh out? That is, the lead section should define the scope of this Dispatch relative to future Dispatches; does this apply to Commons and en.wiki images? Can the sentence dealing with the scope be bolded, so others as clueless as I am won't think this is everything?

In other words, because all of this is Greek to me, I need for the opening to define the scope of what I'm about to learn. The info is all there eventually, but I struggle in the beginning. Ease me in, and the article is not TLDR; just don't lose me in the lead.

In the "Reviewing images" section, I get very tangled up in the two sets of three. Left an inline note. Are these the same three items, or is it coincidence that each contains three. Then when I get down to the "Good image" section, I find four check points. This kind of thing makes it hard for my brain to get around it all. Maybe 1, 2, 3 using a, b, c will help me know what sets of three things I have to check?

It is not too long; it's wonderful. Just try to ease the reader in earlier on, and make it easier not to lose the clueless among us (me). It's going to be very helpful; others probably aren't as bad at image review as I am.

Can it conclude with a line that a future Dispatch will cover <whatever>, and then when we write it, we can add the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I haven't paid attention to the lead since I changed the scope, so that does indeed need tweaking. I'm out of town, so I'll be working on it sporadicly. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

Ec, this image was added just as I was promoting; is it OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! If only all images were so well sourced... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 93

Why is the commons thread mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93 getting no feedback? This one needs the master's touch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, deletion requests can go on for months. There's also currently a big to-do about National Portrait Gallery images, which may be a distraction for a while (a "bigger fish to fry" thing, perhaps). Should I comment at the FAC or try to stir up participation at the Commons deletion request? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I can clear a FAC with a known and unresolved issue; I need someone or something to go one way or the other, since no one anywhere has taken any stand in any direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one, with a lot of back and forth and no clear resolution: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

Thanks for sorting the sound button. The audio side of Misplaced Pages seems to be less developed than images, but forcing the image size works - how long before someone reverts because it's a forced image size(:  ? 05:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs)

FAC has demonstrated that no one gives a damn about that element of Image MOS (among others). The answer probably depends on when it's on the main page. :) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Elcobbola, I saw from Awadewit's talk page that you are an admin on Commons and can delete things there. I was making a map which had a copyrighted image in it for reference and accidentally uploaded it to Commons over two years ago. There are five more recent versions of it, so I doubt anyone will see it, but it has always bothered me. The file in question is the oldest version of Image:Map of Montgomery County Pennsylvania School Districts.png, if you would be so kind as to delete just that. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>° 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be the horizontally-aligned map? What was it's source (something other that US Census?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it is only the oldest version that includes the horizontally aligned map that needs to be deleted. The horizontal map was from a real estate web site and had been used as a copy vio in the article, which I found and got deleted (I think via PUI). That is what prompted me to adapt the Census maps (to replace what had been deleted) and I uploaded the scratch map by accident. I can probably find the source if you need it - it was not PD. Ruhrfisch _><>° 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lions (album) FAC

Hey there. Thanks for catching the lack of an image license. I've added one, but SandyGeorgia needs you to clear it... —Zeagler (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

so some say!

And I disagree ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Y tu mamá también ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rules that can be classified as FOLKLORE are “rules” that are enforced by many schoolteachers, but ignored by most educated and careful writers. This folklore includes the notion that one can never begin a sentence with and or but. The truth is that the vast majority of highly regarded writers, even the most conservative writers, begin sentences with and or but. The same is true for sentences beginning with the word because. Some schoolteachers tell children this instead of taking the time to make sure the children really understand clauses and fragments". --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Or better still (this is from the revised edition of Fowler): "That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with and is a faintly lingering superstition. The OED gives examples ranging from the 10th to the 19th c.; the Bible is full of them." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I always yield to native English speakers in grammar disputes. I've never seen it in formal business writing, however, which is the world in which I live. And I'm pretty sure I have a primary school teacher spinning in his grave. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

<gulp> ... in the "only thing I know about prose" department ... in the olden days ... when I was in the corporate world in a big way, and they made everyone take a better business writing course, they practically ordered us to start sentences with "and", "so" or "but", telling us that let the reader know right away what was coming (more of the same or something different). I'm pretty sure Tony has taken all of my ands and buts away from me, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of a long list of questions as I learn....

Image:Stephen Tyng Mather.jpg - This appears on the National Parks website - does that automatically mean it is a National Parks image as asserted on the image description? I'm unsure about that. Also, IF it is in the public domain, can it be cropped as it has been? (I think it can, but I wanted to make sure.) Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the image seems to be fine given the presence of the disclaimer that "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." The image and the page on which it is used does not indicate otherwise, thus satisfying the condition. For what it's worth, I find "information" to be a curious word choice and would be much happier/more confident with, say, "material", but that's not an issue I'm willing to press on Misplaced Pages. You're right, however, in that merely hosting an image, in and of itself, would not be sufficient indication of authorship. Absent the aforementioned disclaimer, the site would need to reasonably confirm that the photographer was a federal employee and that image was taken during the course of his/her official duties to truly satisfy PD-Gov.

Public domain means the image has no restrictions whatsoever; PD images may be freely cropped, resized, hacked, chopped and decorated with fake mustaches and devil horns. It is (strongly?) recommended, however, that the whole original work be uploaded in addition to the crop, but it is not mandatory (so far as I know). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I think I'll go add a mustache right now. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ec, maybe you can add an FAQ section to WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008 for questions like this that might come up often? These will provide good examples of the kinds of things many of us are unfamiliar with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you read German better than I do - could you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nuthatch? I'm just trying to resolve some publication dates there. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Guck mal... und hier noch. Hennicke edited/published a second run (zweite Auflage - although it was actually a third run) between 1896-1905, which is where the 1897 is coming from; this particular image appears to be from volume two (Band II) of twelve or thirteen total (if the site says for the third run, I missed it). Very much so a multi-volume. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ec, busy afternoon, and then I got sidetracked; is that (Nuthatch) sorted yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some images that need looking at (when you have the time, that is)

Could you please check out a couple of images for me? The page is Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, and the two images I'm concerned about are the ship photo which heads the article, and the "St Paul's Rocks" photo a little further down.

• The ship image was uploaded to Commons by someone, but the details look bare - from an "old postcard", based on a photograph "probably" by William Speirs Bruce. Bruce died in 1921, so if he did take the photo all is presumably well, but did he? I don't think we can establish this for sure. We do know that Bruce was a keen photographer, and that many of the expedition's photographs are his work. Sadly, however, unlike the famous piper and penguin, this photograph is not in the official history of the expedition, published in 1906.
• The St Paul's Rocks image was uploaded by me. Same story, really - it is probably but not unquestionably Bruce's work, and I can't confirm when it was published.

I'd rather remove and replace the photographs now, than have a dispute at FAC, if I take the article there. Your advice will be much appreciated - even though I'll probably not want to hear it. Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Although weak and certainly not optimal sourcing, this page has a postcard with that image of the Scotia. That seems to be enough reasonable indication of publication before 1.1.1923.
• I agree with the concerns about St Paul's Rocks. The source, unfortunately, does not have publication or author information. Isn't it a bit curious that it's in color, too? The technology existed then, but all of the other expedition images are black and white.
• Image:SNAEflag.jpg has incorrect licensing; The flag may have existed in 1902, but this image of it did not (color and other technical qualities are too good to have come from a 1900s era camera). Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. only applies to exact photographic copies of public domain images; the flag is technically a 3D object. If you could get the 1906 version from The Voyage of the Scotia, you'd be fine, or you could Paintscape an .svg version and use {{PD-flag-100}} (although that would not have the historic mien).
• Image:Polar medal top.jpg can't legitimately claim fair use per WP:NFCC#1. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice are always much appreciated. I will delete St Paul's Rocks, a relatively unimportant image. As to the flag, assuming I can't upload a 1906 version, I'm afraid I don't know how to "Paintscape an .svg version and use {{PD-flag-100}}". And I don't quite understand what you mean about the medal - (As an object still in existence, a free alternative "could be obtained"). Is this telling me to do something? Sorry about my confusion.Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; my comments were ill-articulated, to say the least; I hadn't had my coffee, apparently. Regarding the flag, I actually meant inkscape, which is just a vector graphics program (a resulting flag would be similar to this "style"). Regarding the medal, the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) only allow non-free images when a free version could not be created. For example, we couldn't use a copyrighted picture to illustrate a fire hydrant, as a free image could be obtained (e.g. Wikipedian takes their own photo and uploads it with a free license). So, too, is the case with the medal. The object still exists, so the opportunity for someone to photograph it and release that photo with a free license also still exists. By comparision, fair use for Bruce is ok, because he's deceased (i.e. no opportunity for a free photo to be created). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As to the flag, I am now using a non-contentious image of the Scottish flag, which is OK for my purposes. As to the medal, this image appears on a number of[REDACTED] pages (Polar Medal, Harry McNish and William Speirs Bruce); are they all in breach of the rules? It might be theoretically the case that a free version could be created, but polar medals, unlike fire hydrants, are pretty rare, and the opportunity to photograph one exists only theoretically, for most people. My best chance would appear to go out and win one (if they're still being awarded), but failing that, I'll look for an alternative image. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the image shouldn't be used in any article. For better is worse, the criterion does not include consideration of ease of obtaining the free version (to play devil's advocate: an object introduced in 1857 is more likely than not to have public domain images - somewhere; a object of historic interest may be in museums; an object awarded to still-living individuals has a small, but existent, pool of people who could take a free image without the need for the object to be on public display). Not that the redlink will help much, but Image:New Henri Delaunay Trophy.jpg was recently deleted for the same reason. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My cup runneth over. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Paul GA Preparation

Hello,

The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).

Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.

Thanks and have a great day, Calebrw (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada

An editor states at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anekantavada that images have been resolved; I can't see that conclusion. Do you have time for an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to update; the images haven't been so much as touched. The concerns, however, have been summarily dismissed and I've been implicitly written off as a "hot shot" following a suppositious "moral duty". Another example of precisely why I dropped FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the images on the article Anekantavada. Per SandyGeorgia advise on Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada, can you review it? Thanks--Anish (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of my comments seem to have offended you, which I did not realise, and for which I apologise. I will strike out those comments. --Anish (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've commented at the FAC. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this image here copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. If yes, under what licencing can it be uploaded? Maybe this will resolve the last hurdle.--Anish (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, verifiability, not truth, is the threshold at Misplaced Pages. If you can demonstrate that the website is reliable per WP:RS, et al., then it's "fine". The wrinkle is that I suspect the site is speaking to its status in India, not the United States. To be used as such on Misplaced Pages, it would need to be PD in the U.S. (India status is only germane on the Commons), but I won't press this issue. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question.

A lot of pictures and images on Jainism are available on www.jaina.org, in its education folders (which is also distributed as free CD’s) like this.

Its readme folder says here that all the material is from its own past publication, public domain and is not copyrighted material. So now the question is – can we upload the images from this website? Hope you will reply here. Thanks--Anish (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of town and short on time, so give me a few days to get back to you (didn't want you to think I was ignoring this bit ;)). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anekantavada

Thanks for helping in the promotion of the article and also for having patience till the end. You tip on the last image did the trick. Thanks again.--Anish (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) have made a recent edit on Anekantavada, changing the image here of Gandhi. I am not reverting his edit as it seems to be a good faith edit and the status of image may have changed of which I may not be aware. I know you are abit busy but can you do a quick check whether the status of Gandhi images has changed.Thanks --Anish (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there hasn't been a status change. Just revert and point folks to the FAC, if needed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Scottish piper image repositioning

You asked at FAC whether the piper image on Scottish National Antarctic Expedition could be relocated nearer to its text reference, in view of stacking problems arising from its position in the lead section. I have been a little reluctant to do this, for reasons explained on the FAC page; however, another editor has done a trial, relocating the piper within the text. Can you comment on this? Does the displacement of the next section heading represent a violation? Brianboulton (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of policy or guidelines advising against the header displacement (stacking, however, is to be avoided). My comment was meant to be explicit in its declaration of being merely a (helpful) observation (i.e. the placement really doesn't matter to me and I don't consider the issue actionable); it's somehow vexing that it's even merited mention in the declarations of others. Do what makes sense and is best for the article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PD-Art

I'm becoming a bit overwhelmed trying to sort out PD-Art. For example, we don't seem to have a complete list of countries and their rulings on photographic representations of 2D works of art. Do you know of one? I need information on Ireland. Awadewit (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The notions on which PD-ART is based generally fall out of case law (i.e. they're adjudicated, not necessarily statutory). As such, they're tricker to find (e.g. one might need a "local" analog of Lexis) and only exist in relatively few jurisdictions (i.e. those with active IP legislation - mostly "first world" countries). The brief list here is probably the best you'll do (direct to UK, to which Ireland belongs). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Have I lost it? I thought only Northern Ireland was covered by UK law. I'm losing my mind. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you need to know for the Republic? Is there an image in particular or is this general curiosity? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was working on improving the details for Image:LadyMorgan.jpg, which I just added to an article. In the process, I buckled down and started looking at PD-Art. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one

An unresolved image issue at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Robert F. Kennedy assassination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

hello. I currently have Janet Jackson in peer review. Would you mind looking over the fair use content? The article currently has two audio samples and two images. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling, so it may be a few days before I get to it, but I'll take a look. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chance ...

Talk:Tourettes Action#Image licensing SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you're going to be disappointed (you may start hating me after all :-), but I didn't understand a single thing there. Does it matter, btw, that it's UK and not US? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Imagine the "chaos" and impracticality that would arise from making everything that was created by a human (i.e. a work of authorship) eligible for copyright protection. You wouldn't be able to photograph cars, chairs, clothing, etc. Photographs at picnics could be nothing but naked people on grass (the blanket, clothes, bottles, glasses, plates, etc would all be subject to copyright) - and no one wants to see Uncle Wally naked. The horror.

Copyright law has a mechanism to alleviate this problem by granting exemption to "useful articles" (objects with "intrinsic utilitarian function"). The U.S. has case law which establishes typefaces, the characters therein, etc. as such "useful objects"; merely changing coloring/positioning, additionally, is not creative/original enough to defeat the intrinsic utilitarian function (thus the statement on the Copyright Office website). Basically, that logo is too utilitarian, too simple, too laking in originality, etc. to be eligible for copyright protection in the U.S. (although it does get Trademark protection). If it helps, ignore the legal lingo and just go for the concept via examples: the White Album and 3M logo (if the image is just text, it doesn't get copyright protection). The U.K. is somewhat different; typefaces are copyrightable as such, but not in their use. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. (Where would we be without you?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriott School of Management

I'm contemplating putting the article up for FAC again, after responding to a good PR. Would you mind scanning the article and letting me know if anything jumps out at you that would create any road blocks. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost heads up

Heads up. Unfortunately (although I put out the alert), it looks like User:Mifter/Signpost is going to come out the week before the Dispatch, so I thought you might need to have a look, lest anything is missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

is going to come out the week before the Dispatch

I'm confused; isn't it already the week before the Dispatch (August 11)? I don't like that this doesn't tell folks that they should be using the Commons. Misplaced Pages should really only have fair use images and images PD in the US, but not in their originating country (per WP:IMAGES "It is recommended that free media ... be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons"). Also, it's concerning that it doesn't rely on the actual policy (WP:IUP), but instead relies only on guidelines. It also encourages (implicitly) forcing image size. Grrrr. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I tried to put out the heads up (post on Ral315's talk page, he's the Signpost editor), to no avail. Re dates, the Signpost never publishes on time, but this is scheduled for the August 4 edition (which hasn't published yet, but could publish any day), and you're scheduled for August 11. If you're interested in trying to clean that up, I'm not sure where you would post about it ... perhaps directly to Mifter? Or if it's really bad, post to the Signpost newsroom, ask that it be deferred a week to run with ours, so you'll have time to provide suggestions ? Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Other SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just contrary to MOS, so it's not a "stop the presses" issue. I'll drop Mifter a note. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

Please confirm if all images meet wiki guidelines in this article. thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Only a few, relatively minor issues:

• Image:Hoysala emblem.JPG is now on the Commons. The local en.wiki file should be tagged for speedy deletion (CSD:I8)
• Image:Udupi.JPG needs a verifiable source and image summary per WP:IUP
• Images should not be left-aligned under level 2 headers per MOS:IMAGES
• There is image Sandwiching in the "Age of Harihara" section. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have taken care of these issues. I just removed the Udupi image without verifyable source and added my won image. As far as the Hoysala emblem image, I have requested for deletion and assume that once the en.wiki image is deleted, the wiki commons equivalent image with automatically show up in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Do you happen to have a wikicommons account? If not, I think they allow ips to file copyright problems there. I brought up one problem in a discussion forum as an ip, but never filed a review, so I don't know if its allowable without an account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Commons admin. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. Then you can file the appropriate action, right? We really need things on that end to go first, otherwise, it will still appear as GFDL compliant from this end. Could you add diffs to the RFK FAC page? That would help. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. Images used in Misplaced Pages articles, regardless of the where the file is on a Wikimedia server (e.g. whether it's in the Commons folder or the en.wiki folder), need to comply with Misplaced Pages policy (which, by the way, is more lenient than Commons policy). I've nominated the files for deletion - your implicit request - but I bring them up at FAC (an appropriate venue) so you can actually fix and retain them or find alternatives. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, once that goes through, can you help us figure out what images can be used? We do have the luxury of some of the images not being replaceable. Also, are there any others on the commons that haven't been found yet? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you did not tag this for deletion, but it was one that you mentioned on the FAC about. Was this overlooked? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this at LOC; it should be a good replacement for the lead image. I'm uploading now. I don't think the journal page would pass NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, so it can't be salvaged. The grave stone image has an en.wiki and Commons version; I'm debating how to handle it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There was also this image on commons already. It looks like the commons version of the grave was moved from the[REDACTED] version, so delete the wiki and keep the commons? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the notebook can only be found in chunks from websites with sketchy copyrights and in that book. However, could it be in the archives somwhere? Is there an RFK archive? I doubt the author of that one book had the original and kept it to himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The source for that image is password protected; a verifiable source (required per WP:IUP) is one that can be accessed by the public.

The reason the grave image is an issue is because it doesn't explicitly assert an author (we are forced "to rely" on the implication of the {{PD-self}} copyright tag). Per IUP, this is not good enough. It's a problem, further, because the en.wiki version was uploaded by WiscoBoy91 and the Commons version was uploaded by Estoymuybueno. Are they the same person? Which one is the real author (en.wiki was here first, but Commons version has the metadata)? There are millions of photos of this grave site on Flickr; how do we know this image wasn't just grabbed from that or another site? This is precisely why IUP requires a verifiable source (an explicit assertion of authorship with contact information, in the case of "self-made" images) and a summary (details to corrobarate the tag). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any pictures of the grave on Flicker that are able to be taken onto Commons or justified? I've seen it done before with lolcats, but, yeah, they aren't going on an FA candidate. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me look and see what I can find. Is the new lead going to work? If folks are ok with it (i.e. it won't be reverted to the questionable one), I'll go ahead and strike that issue. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)