User talk:Foo-med

Re: Image:Simondavies.jpg and others

Hi Foo-Med. I'm concerned about several of the images you have uploaded - they appear to be professionally taken images. Could you be clearer about where you found the images, and what you mean by "self made"? If you did not take these photographs yourself, then there are copyright issues involved which would preclude these images from being used on Wikipedia. Please don't upload any more images until we've resolved this, as this could expose Wikipedia to copyright liability. Thanks, Deiz talk 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deiz, Thank you for your message. I was at one stage a self-employed professional football photographer. I personally took all of these images and hold the full and unequivocal copyright licenses. I am very keen for these images to be used rather than going to waste on my hard drive and am therefore more than happy for the Wikipedia community to benefit from their display in the public domain. Please get in touch if there's any further issues and I'll do my best to explain. Cheers, Dan

That's great, wonderful to see such high-quality images being freely licensed. It would be ideal to include as much information as possible in the image descriptions, as I suspect other editors may have the same concerns. In the "source" line, you could note that you personally took the image in the course of your work as a photographer, and in "permission" you should explain that the photograph is yours, and you have not otherwise licensed or sold the image to a 3rd party in a way that would restrict your ability to release it into the public domain. You can also copy the release note from the PD box and post it in this section as well. Try to avoid writing "see below" in image descriptions, while it may seem logical to do so on the English Wikipedia image description page, the description and PD tag may not appear together in other pages if the photograph is reused elsewhere. If you have a personal website where the images appear, and / or which contains details about your work as a photographer you could also include a link. The more info you put into each section, the less likely you'll have to answer questions about the images in future. Nice one again, Deiz talk 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to York City F.C., did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. These links have little direct relevance to the clubs in question, and should be considered "spam" links. See WP:EL for what types of external links are or aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. Jameboy (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at point 13 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it says that we should avoid linking "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". The link to this tournament should only appear in the Wikipedia article about the tournament and nowhere else. If there is a link to the 2006 FIFA World Cup website, I would expect it to appear in the article about the 2006 FIFA World Cup. I would not expect it to appear in the articles about the FA Premier League, Liverpool FC, Manchester United and Chelsea FC. If you're still unhappy about me reverting these edits, please feel free to raise the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. If a consensus arises that the links are OK to stay, I will personally re-instate every single one myself. --Jameboy (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jameboy has a point here, I deal with this a lot myself. External links should be used sparingly, and only when directly relevant to the topic at hand. Deep-links to specific content on other sites can be cited and used as inline references when appropriate, although I'm not sure that would apply in any of these instances.Deiz talk 12:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept these arguments, however would it be appropriate to link FROM the York City FC Wikipedia page to a York City FC player's profile on an external website? Also, where Paul Fairclough is the manager of the England Semi-professional Team, surely its relevant to link to the annual Semi-Professional Tournament?

The answer is no:

External links from York City F.C. should link to web pages about York City F.C.. (not individual YCFC players - these should be linked from the Wikipedia article of the player concerned, e.g. Darren Craddock has a link to his official YCFC profile)
External links from Paul Fairclough should link to web pages about Paul Fairclough.
Ideally we need an article on the Four Nations tournament, which could have an external link to the website you want to link to. At the moment I don't think that article exists however, so to link to www.the4nations.com from England C national football team in the meantime is probably just about OK.

Remember though, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links. External links should be kept to a minimum. Hope that helps. --Jameboy (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I realise that the context I add needs to be very specific in future. Just one other thing, I did create a Four Nations Tournament page on Wikipedia - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Four_Nations_Tournament - but I cannot seem to 'link it in' - says "this page is orphaned. Can you explain how I amend this?

Add this tag: [[The Four Nations Tournament]] in appropriate places. Deiz talk 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Hi, you should consider uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons, that way they can be used by all different language editions of Wikipedia, like the Welsh Wikipedia. Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2008-06-12 14:55

Orphaned non-free image (File:Merthyr club logo.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Merthyr club logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]