Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:14, 4 March 2014

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hello user Werieth,

A Rensselaer engraving was removed. It's copyright expired long ago. Please restore it.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• File:Downtown Troy, looking east up the hill, 1904.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The file in question may have been created in 1904, but there is a lack of information regarding its publication history. Thus we cannot establish that copyright has expired. Take File:EzraPound&IsabelPound1898.jpg as a similar example from 1887 which is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. What specific details do I need to dig up in order to have it restored? I am looking at that Pound photo and its details. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• If I personally email Rensselaer Polytechic Institute and receive approval in written form, is that enough for restoration? Thanks. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• We need to establish the author and date of first publication. Werieth (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

Regarding your at Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States; it was a bit premature. Do you even bother to figure out what is going on? Your application of WP:NFLISTS as discussion was under way at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#minor_organizations for redirects. As you can see no one objects to the redirect, but the discussion has gone on tangents. So, if the redirect nor are in place immediately, you are just going to pounce. WP:NFLISTS mostly applies to closer related topics so items 1-3 don't apply as the Scout like organization "article" is more like bunch of "subarticles". Item 4 is what I assume your are basing your judgment which if you would have let redirect be put in place over the unsourced articles, the images would not be in another article (not that WP image policy understands how images are handled on a webserver, but that is another story). Now you have frozen the change over to redirects as the article has been locked to another editor throwing tantrums. Spshu (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 sets the bar fairly high for usage of non-free media. There is an allowance for a company/organization logo on the article about the company, but that doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations. Im sorry if you disagree with WP:NFCC but its policy. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

One image cannot meet "8. Contextual significance." or "3. Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." in a multi-organizational article as one logo cannot represent all these organizations. So, your statement isn't true that it "doesnt apply to a list of companies/organizations." Spshu (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading what I am saying. I have no clue what point you are trying to make, but a non-free image must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid. If a company isnt notable enough for their own article they are not notable enough to justify the inclusion of their logo. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am reading what you are saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I am point out that multiple images in an article does meet WP:NFCC#8 (the item you claimed above is the one reason for the rejection) particularly in this case. Because, the organizations are not closely enough related it is such that each image would have its own "contextual significance". Item 3 specify and directly denies your statement: "As I stated there is generally an acceptance that displaying a logo of a company/organization is acceptable on the article about that group. However when the group no longer has their own article the de facto allowance for usage of their logo becomes invalid." as it does allow multiple image to be used. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to include the images at all? They are not required to understand that there are a number of scout like groups. If any one group is notable enough to justify a logo, they are notable enough for their own article and if they are not notable enough for a stand alone article, they are not notable enough to include the logo. Just because we discuss the group doesnt mean we need to display their logo. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Because, perhaps the "subarticles" are on the cusp of being notable, but just missing that one other publication of general interest source that publishing an article on that. The images are already in the "system" and the WP editor(s) don't have to go through the process of re adding the image when they find that notable article source is already out there but have not been found. Also, one editor gave provisional support with the proviso of image retention in the merger. Also, you would have notice that several of the groups that have images are in article that are not notable as is. Why are you not remove the images from those article? But not one of the 10 NFCC items is notability or has to do with notability. Logos would help readers to identify the different groups of scouts or scout like groups ie. meet requirement 8. "contextual significance".

In effect your argument leads to "Why have any images any where on Misplaced Pages?" Take them all down, why do I need the WP and "a Wikimedia project" logos on every page. Isn't copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? Are we not in violation then every time we start a new article? Spshu (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)