Archive index |
|
---|---|
2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
|
Threads older than 5 days may be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
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)
- 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)
- 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)