User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/June

Using a company logo

Thank you for the reference page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria) for a company logo usage, but I'm still unclear. Do I need to get the logo from a printed source or digital source like a pdf and not from the website? SherryOcean (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi SherryOcean. Is this just a general question or does it have to do with a specific edit I made?

If it's a gerneal question, then an online source (preferably an official website) should be fine. Basically, you should try and provide as much information as possible about the logo (see WP:NFCC#10a) so that it's copyright status can be verified. Non-free files also need to be WP:PUBLISHED per WP:NFCC#4, and a logo posted online somewhere (especially by the original copyright holder) would meet that criterion.

If your question has to do with a specific logo, perhaps one that I might've removed from a page, then I can provide a more specific answer if I know which logo you're asking about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

General question, Marchjuly. Do I need to get the logo from a printed source like a pdf published online (like a user's manual) or something mailed to me through snail mail (like a user's manual)? SherryOcean (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, SherryOcean. I add a whole lot of logos in the course of my editing on school articles. Marchjuly generally works with files already uploaded. So perhaps an explanation from the side of the process you are looking at may help. Generally, an organization's logo will be found on its website somewhere. If it is in a form you can download it, and then upload it to en.wiki using the upload wizard, that's your best choice. If that is not possible, then yes, copying it off a pdf that is linked from their website is the next best choice. Scanning it off a document and uploading it is a generally poor choice, as it leaves holes in, for lack of a better term, the chain of custody of the image, bringing questions of its accuracy into play. Rarely, I've used sites like a school's official Facebook page, or an organization that the school belongs to, such as the state athletic sanctioning body, as a source, but those too are relatively poor choices. Hope this helps. Thanks for being a Wikipedian! John from Idegon (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

AWWWWWESOME John from Idegon!!!! THAT is exactly what I needed to understand! Have a great day! SherryOcean (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks John for helping out. @SherryOcean: If you have anymore questions about media files, a good place to ask can be WP:MCQ. You can also ask at WP:FFU if you're unable to or unsure about uploading a file yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-free logo question

When I uploaded the Reverse Logistics Association logo, I tried hard to follow the instructions for logos. I included this: {{Non-free use rationale logo | Article = Draft:Reverse Logistics Association | Use = Org...

In your comment, you suggested I include {{Non-free logo}}, which I had already tried to do, with the text above. But I have added it as a separate line, as well. I hope I have done it correctly, and have, as far as I can tell, but I would not be surprised if I've not done it quite correctly. I thought the first one was sufficient, because it generated the blue box with rows of information. I didn't know I needed two. Per your suggestion, I have added {{Trademark}}. Thanks. Thank you for explaining that I can't use a non-free image in a draft article, I had not seen that. Thanks also for telling me I don't need to panic if (when) the logo is deleted before the article is approved. Thanks. Ron --Rontl (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rontl. All files needs two thing on their page: (1) a copyright license and (2) information about it's source, author, etc. Item (1) is important because it lets the Wikipedia community know whether the file is copyright protected content or freely-licensed/public domain content, which in turn lets anyone wanting to use the file on or off Wikipedia know the terms and conditions which need to met to do so. Item (2) is important because it allows the copyright license provided per (1) to be verified and confirmed. Files missing (1), (2) or both can be deleted per WP:F4. Non-free files require a little more than freely-licensed or public domain files because they are considered to be still under copyright protection and care needs to be taken to try and ensure that Wikipedia is not violating the rights of the original copyright holders and is also benig used in way considered acceptable by the Wikipedia community. So, an non-free file not only requires (1), (2), but also (3) a non-free use rationale. Item (3) provides an explanation as to how the file is being used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This is a Wikipedia policy which only applies to how files are being used on Wikipedia, and non-free use files lacking a proper non-free use rationale can be deleted per WP:F6. Items (1), (2) and (3) can be added manually to files if you want as long as thenecessary information is all there; however, some editors have created various WP:TEMPLATEs to help streamline the process, make the information easier to add, and try and keep things standardized for all files. For freely-licensed or PD files, {{Information}} is often used for item (2), while the templates found in Category:Non-free use rationale templates are often used to cover both items (2) and (3) for non-free files.

{{Non-free logo}} and {{Non-free rationale logo}} look similar and even have similar names, but they do not serve the same purpose: the former is needed for item (1), while the latter is needed for items (2) and (3). It looks like File:Reverse Logistics Association logo.png did have a non-free use rationale, but it was missing a copyright license; so, that's why I tagged it and then added the notification to your talk page. Since you added the copyright license, the file now has items (1), (2) and (3) so it seems OK to be used once the draft you're working on has been approved. There is one other thing though in that all non-free files are required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7. Since non-free content cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9, the file is currently what is known as an "orphan" and therefore can be deleted per WP:F5 if it's not added to an article within 5 days. Eventually, the file will be tagged for deletion for this reason by a WP:BOT or a human image patroller, and you should receive a {{Di-orphaned fair use-notice}} on your user talk page when that happens. There's not much which can be done when this happens other than to find an existing article where the file can be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (this can be trickier than it seems for non-free logos), so there's a good chance the file will be deleted. Once again, deleted files can be restored at a later date, so just discuss things with the deleting admin once the draft has been approved.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here, at WT:NFC or at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed explanation! That was a lot to understand, so it took me a couple of days to digest it all, but I think I've got it now. As you said, it would be very difficult to find a legitimate use for the image somewhere else. So I'll just have to wait for the other page to get approved where I use this, and then I'll discuss the situation with the admin who deletes this image, and get it restored so I can use it. Thanks again for all of your help! Rontl (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User name

My user name is my real name. I don't think it is a problem for wikipedia username policy. Some other users seem to use their real names as user names. Kind regards. Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Paul-Eric Langevin: You can use your real name if you want per WP:REALNAME. I removed the template I added after I realized that you were Paul-Gilbert Langevin's son and not someone pretending to be his son or someone else related to him. However, because you are his son, you have a conflict of interest with repsect to anything written about your dad on Wikipedia. This means you should follow WP:COIADVICE and really only be editing article content about him in certain limited cases. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discourage by the community becuase it often leads to problems and misunderstandings. Your best course of action here would be to follow Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and use the article talk page to propose changes you think are needed using Wikipedia:Request edit.

You should also realize that even though there are many different language Wikipedia's operated by the the Wikimedia Foundation, they all have their own repsective policies and guidelines established by their respective communities. This means there are things which might be acceptable and allowed on one Wikipedia which are not allowed on another. English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may be somewhat more restrictive those of other language Wikipedias, but it's these policies you must adhere to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ok, thanks for your message. I understand this policy. However, how is it possible to manage this page in order that the two frames ("general notability guideline" and "conflict of interest") could be deleted? Should I ask to some English or American music specialist (musicologist, music critic, player, director,...)? Maybe he could confirm the notability and check the objective data (objectivity of the page). Or to some music specialist on Wikipedia? My father was actually a noted French specialist about works by Anton Bruckner and Franz Schubert, often quoted now in musicology courses. I can see that his noted colleagues, especially Harry Halbreich, Pierre Vidal (composer), Marc Vignal, and some others, do have now a page on English wikipedia. I try to stay as objective as possible but still the fact is I am his son. Thank you in advance. Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things here:

1. Maintenance templates like the ones added to the top of the article are not necessarily bad things. They are added when someone feels that there are issues with an article that need addressing, not an indication that the article is at risk of being deleted. In fact, most maintenance templates are added because someone feels that the article can be improved and shouldn't be deleted. Articles tagged with these templates are added to category pages which makes them easy to find by those editors who go around cleaning up pages with issues. If you're able to address the reasons why a template was added yourself, you can remove it explained in Help:Maintenance template removal. However, you should be careful doing this on articles where you have a COI (especially if the maintenance template has to do with COI editing) and make sure that if you do remove a template, you leave a clearly worded edit sum and an explanation on the article's talk. If you remove a template and someone then re-adds it, try to engage that person in a discussion on the article's talk page and avoid edit warring.
2. While many of your father's collegues may have English Wikipedia articles written about them, that does not mean (a) your father should also have an article, (b) these collegues should have articles, or (c) both a and b. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for a little more on this. Also, different language Wikipedias have different notability guidelines, so just because someone has a Wikipedia article written about them on French Wikipedia does not automatically mean they should have one written about them on English Wikipedia and vice versa. Non-English sources can be used in English Wikipedia articles per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, but they need to be reliable sources. Article content on other language Wikipedias can be translated into English, but you need to be aware of Wikipedia:Translation. There are certain editors who help translate articles found on other language Wikipedias into English and you might find some at Wikipedia:Translators available
3. The article about your father is probably not being watched by many editors, so any requests you make on the article talk page might take awhile to be noticed. Try using Template:Request edit since that sometimes speeds things up. You can also post at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to see if someone more familiar with the subject matter than myself will take a look at the changes you're proposing.

All of the above is just some general information, but maybe you'll find it helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: My father's page, as the pages about other family members, may represent a conflict of interest (COI) in English wikipedia policy, because I am a family member, so the frames might be useful. But the frame on "general notoriety guideline" on my father's page is not, because he was a noted musicologist and a specialist about Anton Bruckner and Franz Schubert's works in France, as were his colleagues Harry Halbreich and Pierre Vidal (composer), and as Marc Vignal still is. You can ask for example Marc Vignal himself, or some other English or French musicologist. My advice is to keep the frames about COI active, but to suppress the one about "general notoriety guideline". If you don't look for the right informations and don't suppress it, you can do as you think might be the best, but no doubt it is a mistake, in my opinion. Kind regards, Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Paul-Eric Langevin, it's General Notability Guideline, not notoriety. That confusion on your part points to the bigger problem you're having grasping the concept of notability. You've repeatedly stated someone could contact person x or person y to verify your relative's notability, when what is required to show notability is to show that the person in question has been written about (or in other words, made note of; hence the term "notability") in multiple published, secondary, reliable sources, totally academically independent of him. The burden is on you to show that. Who has what to say about your relative's import is original research, unless they have published on the subject (and even that doesn't speak to the question of independence). John from Idegon (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your message, John from Idegon. I understand the problem. In order to certify the notoriety of my father's works (or anything else's works), I must find independant references that establish the notoriety of his (or their) works. The problem, in that case, is that his works end in the eighties, and I think there is nothing on the web about it. But it would be interesting to find something about it in the papers of this period. Thank you, Paul-Eric Langevin (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Paul-Eric Langevin. Just to repeat what John posted above, "notoriety" and "notability" are not the same thing particularly when it comes to English Wikipedia policy, so you should try not to confuse the two if you're going to discuss them on English Wikipedia. One of the main reasons that articles are WP:DELETEed from English Wikipedia is that the subject of the article is not considered to be Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article. This isn't intended to reflect badly upon the subject (see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? for a little more on this); it just means the the subject matter does not meet the guidelines established by the English Wikipedia community for being included in English Wikipedia. It might see silly to keep saying English Wikipedia instead of Wikipedia, but the reason I am doing so is because each Wikipedia (there are many, so see meta:List of Wikipedias for a complete list) has its own community of editors and its own policies and guidelines. Sometimes these policies can be quite similar, but other times they can be quite different. So, the policies and guidelines of French Wikipedia are the ones you need to comply with if you want to edit there, while the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia are the one you need to comply with if you want to edit here.

Also, as I stated in a previous post, the fact that someone added a {{Notability}} template to the article about your father should not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. It could mean that someone feels that your father is most likely is notable enough for an article to be written about him, but only that better sources need to be found to make this more clear. In other words, the article is not a complete loss which should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but rather is something which needs some improvement to bring it more inline with relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just for reference, the editor who added the template to was Theroadislong who did so with this edit. Theroadislong is a pretty experienced editor who helps review new articles and drafts, and has created quite a lot of articles himself; so, if Theroadislong felt the article was hopeless, I am almost certain he would've nominated it for deletion instead of simply adding a maintenance template to it. You can ask him about this at User talk:Theroadislong if you want to know exactly why the template was added.

As for sources which can be used to help improve the article, English Wikipedia policy only requires that they be reliable and published. They can even be in another language per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources as long as they are reliable and published. Secondary and independent sources are more helpful in establishing/clarifying notability because Wikipedia is mainly concerned with what others not connected to the subject are saying about it than what the subject or those connected to it are saying, but primary sources can be used for certain types of content. Moreover, sources don't have to be available online so to speak per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Online sources are helpful for sure because they make it easier for others to evaluate and assess the source, but offline sources are acceptable as long as they meet the definition of "published". I think it should be OK for you per WP:COIADVICE to add citations to such sources to the articles about your family to support already existing article content, but you probably should refrain from adding/removing any content yourself (unless it needs to be removed as a WP:BLP violation). Such additions/removals should be proposed on the article talk page first to see what others think. Just follow the steps in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tie Signs edit

Hi - you removed a photo of Erving Goffman from Tie Signs article. The photo was retrieved through Wiki media tab and labeled as "fair use." It is also the same photo that is used on Goffman's main article page. I have returned the photo to the Tie Signs page. Please let me know if it needs to be removed. Thanks.Dougok (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dougok. Thank you for the post, but unfortunately that file cannot be used in that particular article per Wikipedia's non-free use policy. While Wikipedia's does allow non-free images of deceased individuals to sometimes be uploaded and used per item 10 of WP:NFCI, the long-standing consensus has been that this type of non-free use is only considered policy-compliant when the file is being used for primary identification purpose in either the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the individual in question, but not in other articles where the individual might be mentioned (see item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI). That is why the file's non-free use is being allowed in Erving Goffman and that is why the file only has a non-free use rationale for that article. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been made purposely more restrictive than the US concept of fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. There are ten specific non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free image needs to satisfy for use to be considered compliant. The fact that a particular file is being used in one article does automatically mean it's use in other articles is OK for the reasons explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will remove it. I am not sure if it is doable, but it would be helpful if the Wiki media tab did not offer such images without some kind of notation that its use is limited this way. Take care. Dougok (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Image use can be tricky. It's OK to be WP:BOLD, but then it's best to ask for clarification instead of simply re-adding images (particularly non-free images) to articles when they have been removed. The edit sum I left when I first removed the file contains links to relevant pages dealing with non-free use. If you go to those pages, you should find more information as to why the edit was made. Edit sums are how editors explain things to others, so it’s going to be assumed that you read them if you don’t ask for clarification when you don’t. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Still learning my way around.Dougok (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Bow Wow Wow

I posted the question of fair use on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you would like to comment. Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw your post as well as the last one you added to WT:NFC, but I think it might be a good idea to let others respond just to give you a more variety of feedback. You might want to add a link or mention at MCQ that you started this discussion first at WT:NFC just so that others are aware of what’s been posted so far. Doing so might also lessen the chance of somebody bringing up WP:FORUMSHOP as can sometimes happen when there are got multiple discussion about the same topic ongoing at multiple places. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. I'm not a big believer in disputing edits. I really haven't done this before, so I posted it in a couple of places in an attempt to put it in the right place. If I should delete the others, I will. Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to delete anything; in fact, it actually might cause more confusion/trouble if you did, especially if others have already to responded to your post(s) (see WP:REDACT) or you delete posts made by others (see WP:TPO). I think all you really need to do is just pick one place to continue the discussion and then add a wikilink to it for the other pages so that people are aware of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Seabee

I read your comment about images not aliening with text. I could be wrong, but I think alignment changes some with the browser and device being used. This article was edited on Google chrome and I think they correlate with the text fairly well. That is a POV with a COI for-sure but thank you for the observations. Mcb133aco (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you comment Mcb133aco. It took me a bit of time, however, to figure out what it was about. For future reference, it's probably better to respond to posts made on article talk page's by simply adding your response to the same discussion thread rather than on individual user talk pages. This helps to keep everything in one place, and makes it easier for others who might be watching the article to follow and participate in the discussion. So, I'm going to add your post to Talk:Seabee#Image use right below mine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)