User talk:Mjlarochelle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:CBMT1982.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CBMT1982.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broadcasting
Exactly what is it that you view as the problem with calling the city of Greater Sudbury by its actual proper name? Bearcat 05:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I've pointed out in previous iterations of this debate, the city of Greater Sudbury is not divided into a "Sudbury portion" and a "not-Sudbury portion". From my parents' house in Whitefish, I can call friends in Chelmsford, say "Hey, I'm in Sudbury", meaning that I'm sitting in my parents' basement, and not be the least bit misunderstood. The name "Sudbury" does not designate a specific part of the city to the exclusion of other parts. People in the area just don't use "Sudbury" to mean "old city of Sudbury as opposed to Val Caron or Garson"; the word is never used that way. If people need to be more specific than "anywhere in the entire city of Greater Sudbury", they say "Gatchell" or "Minnow Lake" or "Lo-Ellen" or "Copper Cliff" or "New Sudbury", not "Sudbury". You can say "Sudbury" to mean "Sudbury as opposed to North Bay"; you can't say it to mean "old City of Sudbury as opposed to Garson or Skead". It's virtually the same situation that applies in Toronto — while you can still get away with saying "Scarborough", "Etobicoke" or "North York", if you mean the old city of Toronto you have to say something else, not just "Toronto", to actually make it understood what you really mean, because "Toronto" doesn't necessarily convey that you're not standing at the corner of Yonge and Finch.
- Furthermore, a radio or television station is always licensed to the official name of the municipality as it exists at the time of licensing, not to a specific community within a municipal boundary. Any differences that exist between CRTC licensing and official municipal names result from usage lags that occur when a municipal name change takes place after the CRTC license is issued, not from any CRTC convention permitting stations to be licensed to a specific community within a municipality.
- Plus I find it quite instructive that every single Wikipedia contributor I'm aware of who comes from the Sudbury area has insisted on the usage "Greater Sudbury" — the only objections to it that I've ever seen have come from people who have no connection to the city whatsoever and often don't even know that the municipal amalgamation ever took place.
- But the bottom line is that "Sudbury" and "Greater Sudbury" are, for all practical purposes, interchangeable names for the whole thing, not nested entities where the shorter name refers to one specific part, or excludes other parts, of the longer one. Bearcat 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and incidentally, most of the "corrections" you listed on my talk page are replacing the actual city of license with the geographical location of the transmitter, which doesn't even approach being the same thing as what I'm talking about. Ottawa has not been amalgamated into Chelsea, Toronto has not been amalgamated into Grimsby, and Vancouver has not been amalgamated into West Van or Capital G. There's a big difference between using the actual name of a station's city of license when that has changed, and replacing the city of license with a transmitter location that's outside the actual boundaries of that city. Bearcat 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
At some point, Wikipedia has to strike a balance somewhere between common understanding and actual reality — else we'd end up pretending that municipal amalgamations never happened, that Kanata isn't part of Ottawa, that Scarborough isn't part of Toronto, that St. Boniface isn't part of Winnipeg, that Hamilton is part of the Greater Toronto Area, that Cobourg is in Eastern Ontario, and that the easternmost Canadian province is called Newfoundland rather than Newfoundland and Labrador. I disagree with you about where the balance between those two imperatives happens to lie, but you're also right that it's not worth picking a fight about.
But you're still conflating two very distinct issues. I'm not disagreeing with you about the point that people generally say "Sudbury" rather than "Greater Sudbury"; that's quite obviously true. What I'm saying is that unlike "Paris" vs. "Brant", "Sudbury" does not denote one specific community within "Greater Sudbury". Yes, people drop the "Greater" in conversation, but the unmodified name doesn't actually mean anything different than the modified name does. It's a distinction with about as much practical significance as Sheshatshiu vs. Sheshatshit. Bearcat 06:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CBMT1982.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:CBMT1982.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
