User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/March

Date formats

I don't know what sources you read there in Japan but every time I go online and see a Japanese source in Japanese language it look like this. And here is more for the proof: 1--Biografer (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Those pages are written in Japanese. The same date can also be written as XXXX年XX月XX日 as well. Moreover, if you look you'll also find Japanes pages where the dates are written as 平成XX年XX月XX日. However, we are not discussing how the dates are written in Japanese, but rather how they are written in English and how they are written per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Look at some websites such as Mainichi Shimbun and The Japan Times, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, The University of Tokyo, etc., and you'll see that the MDY format is being used quite a lot. If you search for the DMY format you'll find that too. You may even find YYYY-MM-DD as well on some English websites. All three are acceptable and not one is the single preferred format when in comes to Japan per MOS:DATETIES. The reason the MDY year format is being used in the shogi articles is because that is the format being used in the main infobox as well as throughout the body of the article, so that is the one being used per MOS:DATEVAR. Now, if you really think that a change in format is necesasary, then you can discuss it if you want to see if there's a consensus for it. Ish ishiwar has already stated his preference in this post and the template issues were discussed at Template talk:Infobox shogi professional (though the date format never really was much of an issue). So, if you want to suggest things then maybe that is a good place to do so. You can also ask at WT:JAPAN. If you check random articles under that WikiProject Japan purview you'll probably find all three formats being used.

The other thing about the {{Expand Japanese}} template date is not correct. I'm not sure why you think there's a connection between the accss-dates and the "Expand Japanese" dates. The reason dates are added to maintenance templates is two-fold: (1) It allows pages tagged with such templates to be categorized by date if necessary; (2) It allows other editors to quickly see how long ago a template was added and thus how long there's been an "issue" with the article. If you click on some random pages in Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia you see that the templates all have different dates and these dates reflect when the templates were originally added.

FWIW, our first interation probably did not go as smoothly as it could've gone. I have no problem continuing to discuss things with you if you like. If you want to do so here, then that's fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've posted a {{Please see}} on your user talk about WT:JAPAN#Date formats. It's probably best to continue this there to keep everything in one place and make it easier for others to participate. I've also notified various WikiProject and editors about the discussion as well as placed notification of relevant policy/guideline talk pages in an attempt to get more feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Since everybody ignored me there regarding this link I will post it here. According to the link provided by me above, Japan does infact use YMD and no other (look at yellow colored countries). I believe that by posting it here it wont be lost in translation. ;)--Biografer (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

PS As per the above links, I went over them. All I can say is that Japan Times and Mainichi Shimbun use mdy because they are in English. Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet if you will click on the Japanese language version will use YMD. Same thing goes with The University of Tokyo. But since we talk about English dates then explain to me why so many articles related to China for example use YMD when it comes to accessdates on English Wikipedia?--Biografer (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is ignoring you. People get WP:BUSY and they are not required to immediately respond to your post. We are all volunteers who almost certainly do not live their lives according to your schedule. Also, you should really not be splitting up this discussion onto multiple talk pages. It's best to keep everything on WT:JAPAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WGC Mexico Championship

About the image, when I had initially uploaded the image to Wikipedia, my first choice was not to select it as "non free". When I tried a different selection first, it gave me a different sort of drop down option, and I didn't know how to complete the form. So, I selected "non free" instead, to be able to complete the form, as that is the only option I had left. I didn't mean to intend that it was a non free image. That WGC Mexico Championship image I uploaded and used is one that is displayed at the PGA Tour website and found all over search engines as well. And on the 2018 WGC Mexico Championship Wikipedia page I put it on, at the bottom of the page there is a link to the PGA Tour site which shows the corresponding image. So, everything is on the up and up. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johnsmith2116. "Non-free" and "free" refer to an image's copyright status, not whether you can find it somewhere on the web and download it for free. In other words, pretty much everything you find online can be downloaded for free of charge, but is considered to be protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise. The copyright holder is generally considered to be the person (or organization) that created the content and legally holds the rights to it; so, for example, if you walk out the door and take a picture of a sunset, then you hold the copyright on the picture for all intents and purposes and only you can decide whether you want to release it under a free license for others to use. If you then take your picture and uploaded to Facebook or some other website, you still are the copyright holder even though someone can technically download the photo without asking your permission. This may not matter to you, but imagine if someone takes your photo, claims it as their own, submits it as part of some kind of contest and subsequently wins some sort of monetary prize. Not only would they be taking advantage commercially of your work, but they would also be getting all of the accolades for your work. This is a bit of a simplifiction perhaps, but it is why Wikipedia tries to be so careful when it comes to image licensing. Wikipedia tries as much as possible to protect the rights of individual copyright holders because basically anything uploaded to Wikipedia can be downloaded free of charge by anyone around the world for use in any way. Wikipedia does make allowances for non-free content, but such content can only be used in certain specific ways in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The only ways the WGC Mexico Championship image could be considered to be free are (1) you are actually the person who created the work for the PGA, etc. and retained all rights to it and are just allowing the PGA to use it, or (2) the PGA has given their explicit consent and decided to release the image under a free license or has entered into an official copyright transfer agreement with you or someone else. Organizations, etc. post content on their official websites all of the time, and these websites may be able to be viewed free of charge, but the content is still protected by copyright. If you already knew everything I posted above, then I apologize for the wordy explanation and perhaps there's some other reason why you feel the image should not be treated as "non free". Can you clarify what the reason is if this is the case? Finally, when someone posts on your user talk page like I did, it's typically better to reply there because it keeps everything in the same place and makes it easier for others to follow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Dear MarchJuly, I think this is the Award that you deserve. Thank you for the time you took to explain many facts to me concerning editing on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

TV5 Network logo

Hi, I can't understand why you reverted my revision on the fair use rationale of the TV5 logo. In the archived discussion you cited for the revertion, you said that the use of the non-free logo in the TV5 Network article is not needed since the article is already using a freely licensed image with a visible TV5 logo in it. But the latest version of the article is no longer using that image and the current one does not have a visible logo so the use of a non-free logo in that article would be fair. Hollyckuhno (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hollyckuhno. The comments in an FFD discussion and the close almost always are connected, but it is the wording of the close which matters and that is why I cited it. However, this latest version of the logo is quite different from the one that was discussed, at least different enough so that it might no longer need to be licensed as non-free content. If that’s the case, then the licensing can be converted to either {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Right now, I’m trying to figure out which of those two licenses is more appropriate. If it’s the former, then the file can be moved/reuploaded to Commons and can be used by all language Wikipedias; if it’s the latter, the file can be treated as PD only for use on English Wikipedia. Regardless, the file can be readded to the Network article once the licensing has been sorted. Please just wait a bit longer and things should be sorted. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I myself do not have the technical know-how to say whether the image is non-free or not. However, my concern is that the article TV5 Network needs a logo to help the reader identify the subject of the article. The image is low resolution and a fair-use of the image in another article will not violate any copyrights. Hollyckuhno (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that any article, that one in particular, needs an image for identification purposes since the combination of the title and the information in the main infobox/lead are more than sufficient for that purpose. Also, WP:ITSFAIRUSE is not the same as satisfying all of the ten non-free content criteria of WP:NFCC. The question is not necessarily whether the use of the file violates any copyrights since it probably doesn't, but whether the use of it satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy, which has been made purposely more restrictive than fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

I understand the five reversions you made, but please take another look at WP:NOTBROKEN, particularly the fifth bullet underneath "Good reasons to bypass redirects include". It specifically envisions exactly the type of edit that I was making.

For what it's worth, keeping on top of call sign changes has been my main focus over the years, and many thousands of my edits have been cleaning up after incomplete moves — an article gets renamed and the person doing the renaming doesn't clean up the links behind them. The former call sign gets recycled and now there are a bunch of links pointing to the wrong article. In this case, because it's a swap, the WLUP-FM call sign has already been recycled and probably will be again at least once more, since it's only being warehoused on its new home. The edit that I hadn't got to yet was actually to adjust the target of the WLUP (FM) redirect — it really needs to point to the WLUP disambiguation page now, at which point the piped links would absolutely be necessary. Mlaffs (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't not realize I was catching you in the middle of a multi-stage cleanup process. I can go back and revert my reverts if that will help, but won't be able to do so right at this moment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries, and no harm done — I can take care of it. I just figured it was better to drop in and explain rather than risk turning it into a thing, y'know? :>) Mlaffs (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Might be better to link to the actual subsection of the new article instead of the top. Just a suggestion. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for catching my error in using the James Hilton picture in the Hallmark Playhouse article. I had failed to read the material below the image to see the limitations on its use. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Undoing my revision on File:Logo_of_the_game_Voxel_Tycoon_with_transparent_background.png

Hello there. I see you have undone my revision removing the deletion notice on the file for the logo of Voxel Tycoon. If you would click the link in the further copyright information notice box you would see it states that you may use the logo under fair use. Does this not protect the image from deletion currently? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not as I explained on your user talk page. Non-free content use on Wikipedia needs to be in accordance WP:NFCC, and it makes no difference what the copyright holder states since their permission is not needed. The only time copyright holder permission matters is if they want to release their work under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What does the copyright holder need to release the logo under to allow for it to be kept on Wikipedia but not used commercially when it should not be? They are perfectly happy with having the work uploaded on Wikipedia but for a reason I am unsure of they were unable to upload the image to Wikipedia themself (I believe because their account was too new, or something of that nature). DesertPipeline (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically a free license compatible with WP:COPY or c:COM:L is one that allows the content to be downloaded by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose. This includes commercial and derivative use. So, if the copyright holder wants to do that, then they can; however, they need to realize that a free license cannot be revoked or taken back. You can see some examples of license accepted by Wikipedia and Commons at WP:ICT/FL and c:COM:CC.

I'm not sure why they cannot upload the image themselves. All they need to do is register for an account (IP addresses cannot upload files). If they do decide to upload the file, then should upload it to Commons and use the Interactive Release Generator; if they decide they want to release the file you uploaded under a free license, then they should follow c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? and email their explicit consent to Wikimedia OTRS. All they need to do is include the file name in their email and an OTRS volunteer should handle the rest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't practical for the image to be released under a general usage license if it can also be used commercially, because this is of course their work and used for a commercial product that they own. I suppose I will just have to do as you said before and request the image be reinstated when the time comes. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If by chance the file is deleted before whatever draft you're working on is approved, then you can find out which administrator deleted it by clicking on the file's link (it should be a red link at that point). Just post a message on that admin's user talk and explain things; they should have no problem restoring the file as long as there are not other issues which need to be resolved first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Nwff.140.jpg

Hi there MarchJuly!

Thanks for notifying me about the lack of rationale for File:Nwff.140.jpg on my draft page for Northwest Film Forum. I have written a rationale statement for you to review. If the criteria for fair use is met (either at this point or some point in the future), will you remove the di-no fair use rationale template or is that something I have to do? Please let me know if there are any additional issues that I need to fix, or if you have any other questions for me. Thanks for all of your help!

Kmarro (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the ten criteria for non-free use is WP:NFCC#7 which means that the file is likely going to be deleted per WP:F5 regardless of whether it has a non-free use rationale if it's not added to an article. Another one of these criteria is WP:NFCC#9 which means the file cannot be used in drafts, etc. regardless of whether it has a rationale. So, if you can resolve those to issues you're rationale should be OK, so you can remove the template I added or leave it for an admin to do. I would suggest, however, that you provide source link to some sort of official page (ideally the one where you find the logo) to make it's copyright status/ownership easier to verify per WP:NFCC#10c. You might also considered using Template:Non-free use rationale logo for the rationale; you're not required to use a template, but templates are standardized and make verification a bit easier than hand-written rationales. Permission of the copyright holder is not needed for non-free use; it might be nice to have, but it has no bearing on whether the file will be kept or deleted. If by chance the file is deleted per WP:F5, there's no need to reupload it; deleted files aren't gone forever, they are only hidden from public view and can be easily be restored per WP:REFUND which their issues have been sorted. Finally, one last thing if you have a connection to the forum in any way, then you need to carefully read WP:COI. You should also be aware of WP:OWN since it's not the forum's Wikipedia article per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the help!

Elvenwitchtiff (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Anthonie Johannes Theodorus Janse Add photo?

I would like to add a photo for this article Anthonie Johannes Theodorus Janse. This source has a black and white photo. [[1]]. Here also [[2]]. Do you think this is possible? The labyrinthine mysteries of fair use are a bit beyond my present comprehension. We do have similar photos for others of his field/generation, so I thought it would be worth asking you for your opinion before I attempt to add this photo. Thanks for your consideration and for the work you did on Juliette Benzoni and the related articles. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 12:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed to be used per item 10 of WP:NFCI when the image is used as the primary means of identification at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the individual in question. Non-free images of such individuals, however, tend to be much harder to justify in other articles when the individual is mentioned by name, but is not really the primary subject of the article; for example, "List of ....", "Alumni of ....", "People from ....". Such articles tend to be more general in scope and lack the details about the individual you'd expect to find in a stand-alone biography, so non-free use is generally not allowed per WP:NFLIST or WP:NFTABLES, or for reasons listed in WP:NFC#UUI. So, I would say that either of those two images should be OK as {{Non-free biog pic}} ({{Non-free use rationale biog}}) for primary identification purposes at the top of the Janse article, but likely to not be OK for use in other articles, or in subsections of the Janse article. If possible, you should try and provide as much information as you can about the copyright holder per WP:NFCC#10a since it is unlikely that either of those websites are the original copyright holders. Finding this out might help determine whether the image is old enough or for some other reason falls within the public domain; this would mean it would not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and could actually be uploaded to Commons instead.

As long as you feel you've made a reasonable attempt to find a freely licensed equivalent image of Janse per WP:FREER, then a non-free should be OK. "Reasonable" is a bit subjective, but generally it means a bit more than a one-time google search where you just upload the first image you find, while "equivalent" does not mean it has to be exactly the same image or exactly the same quality. As long as the photo can be used for primary identification purposes, even if it shows Janse at a younger age, then WP:NFCC#1 may not be considered satisfied. Janse was born in 1877, so it seems reasonable to expect that there is a photo somewhere of him prior to 1923 (Janse would be in his 40s by then) which would be {{PD-US}} because of its age. Many of the photos of individuals from Janse's time you see on Wikipedia are PD photos, so there's a chance there's one of him out there as well. It might be a good idea to for other opinions at WT:NFC, WP:MCQ or even at c:COM:VP/C if you want just to make sure because some editors are really adept at finding old PD photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed, informative and educational reply. I plan to work my way through it, link by link, to gain a better understanding of the WP rules. I had not considered his DOB in relation to PD images (duhh). I would like to expand this article with bibliography of his works, so I may find a PD photo along the way and will also consult with others, per your suggestion. Thanks again, for the benefit of your experience. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for answering my question! Greatly appreciated! TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Identifying image licenses

Hi Marchjuly, I am new to Wikipedia and I noticed that you pulled a picture from my page for a second time because it's a "non-free file." When I go to a page in the future, how do I identify images that I can not use? Thanks. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liblux (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liblux. The easiest way to find out how an image is licensed is to click on the image itself (or a link to the image's page) and then look for its file copyright tag. All files uploaped to Wikipedia are required to be provided with a copyright license (i.e., file copyright tag) and this license pretty much determines how a file may be used. Any file licensed as non-free content can only be used in the article namespace and can only be used there if it satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. The files I removed from User:Liblux/sandbox was File:Black Panther OS Vol 1 2.png. If you click on that link, you'll see it's licensed as {{Non-free comic}}. If yoU're not sure about the licensing of an image or think it might be the correct licensing, you can ask for help at WP:MCQ. Non-free content use can be tricky and is not considered to be automatic; just because an non-free image is being used on one page, doesn't mean it's OK to use on other different pages. Each individual use needs to be assessed as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE.

Just a few other general things about talk pages, user pages, etc.

1. New talk page threads (at least on Wikipedia talk pages) should be added to the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is to click on the "New section" tab located at the top of the page, and the software will open an edit window which will place the new thread in the correct location. New posts made to an existing discussion thread should be added to the bottom of the thread. The easiest way to do this is to click on "edit" at the end of the section heading and the softtware will open the edit window for that particular thread. Also, please try to remember to properly indent and sign your talk page posts. The former makes it easier to figure who is responding to whom, and the latter makes it easier to figure out who posted what and when. There are a few acceptable ways to sign a post, but the easiest way is four tilde. You can find out more general details about how to use talk pages at H:TALK.
2. All Wikipedia pages are essentially the property of the Wikimedia Foundation as explained in WP:OWN; this also applies to userpages, etc. per WP:UP#OWN. So, techinically there are no "my pages" anywhere on Wikipedia per se. Users are allowed a bit of leeway when it comes to pages in their username space, but user pages are expected to comply with WP:UP. This is something which is sometimes hard for new users to understand, but you should be fine as long as you keep this in mind.

If you have any questions about any of the above you can ask them below or at a place like the Wikipedia Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Postal Office logo

Why is the image still utilized on United States Postal Service? Seems to me you should WAIT to remove the image if has yet to be deleted from wikipedia. - User:Blakebs (user talk) 9:22 PM (CST) March 28, 2018

@Blakebs: Please see the message I left on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Public domain image

Hi, Marchjuly, You checked my DYK nomination (Did you know nominations/Yaroslav Halan) and mentioned that it contains a non-free image (File:Yaroslav Halan's Body After Murder.jpg). But this file now is available on Wikimedia Commeons under the same name as a public domain. That's why, in the description of the non-free image, I added the tag "shadows commons". Please, for this purpose use the public domain version which is uploaded to Commons. Катала— Preceding unsigned comment added by Катала (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Катала: Thanks for pointing that out. "Shadowing" is sometimes a problem, but the Wikipedia software will continue to use the non-free on English Wikipedia until the shadowing issue is resolved. One of the files will have to be either deleted or have its name changed. Finally, just one other thing. For some reason your post was not properly signed, so you might want to take a look at WP:SIGN to see what the issue might be. The easiest way to sign posts is WP:TILDE, but some editors customize their signatures per WP:CUSTOMSIG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Marina Chechneva (1967).jpg

I meant to take care of Marina Chechneva (1967).jpg after finding earlier images of her that I earlier thought were someone else. Go ahead and delete it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It will be deleted in a few days once an admin gets to it, but you might be able to tag it with {{db-author}} to have it deleted faster. Jut leave an edit sum explaining why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

2015 NRL Logo.png

Hello. Would like to try to clarify why I made edits to that picture to be able to be added to those couple of extra articles. The current NRL logo actually started being used in 2014, sorry for not going through the porper channels to get that changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.151.10 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As I posted on your user talk page, the file’s non-free use was previously discussed and the consensus reached is that its non-free use is only acceptable in the 2015 season article. If you think it should be used in other articles, then you should discuss things with the administrator who closed the discussion and explain to them how the non-free use in those articles is justified.

Generally, relevant policy allows the use of such logos for primary identification purposes in the main article about the event, tournament, competition, etc., but not in articles about an individual season or occurrence per item#14 of WP:NFC#UUI. Individual season specific logos are acceptable if they exist, but the default is not to simply add the main logo if they don’t. In some cases, however, the logo may have changed for a specific season perhaps due to a sponsor change, anniversary season or some other reason. In those cases, the logo may be allowed to be used in the article of the season where it was first used, especially when there is some sourced critical commentary discussing the logo change in the particular season’s article. The file’s name specifies 2015, so just going by that it would be fair to assume that 2015 was the first season the logo was used; if, however, that’s incorrect and you can show that the logo was first used in 2014, then the file should probably be renamed and the image removed from 2015 and added to 2014. This is one of the things you can discuss with the closing admin.

Finally, it’s a bit unusual for a new IP editor to show up and immediately start editing a non-free use rationale like you did. Have you edited before, perhaps from another IP or another account. In the past, a registered user got indefinitely blocked for disruption and sock puppetry. That editor was also trying to add the logo to the various individual season articles, and continued to try and do so using various IPs after their main account was blocked. So, other editors watching those pages are naturally a little suspicious when a new IP shows up and starts making similar edits. If, therefore, you’re planning on regularly contributing to such articles, then you might want to consider registering for an account so as to not get mistaken for this block-evading editor. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)