Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Northern State Parkway
Ive been doing some work on an experimental page for the NSP at User:Jgcarter/Northern State Parkway (JGCarter Test). I will be posting comments in the talk section. Please watch this page as I will be seeking comments. Nothing groundbreaking on the page so far, though.
[edit] A letter from Public Affairs, NYS Thruway Authority
In late December 2006, I wrote the NYSTA for written permission for use of the trailblazer “in an encyclopedic article, both in an article about the Thruway proper as well as for routes that cross, intersect, or terminate at the Thruway.” I also asked for input on whether the trailblazer's presence on the articles of intersecting routes (and others) were appropriate, or decoration.Early March, 2007, their response:
Due to the interactive nature of Wikipedia, the Authority cannot monitor compliance with the terms of any license or the accuracy of the use of the trailblazer in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the Authority cannot grant written permission for use of the trailblazer in any on-line Wikipedia article. The Authority takes no position on fair use for the purpose you have proposed. The letter continued by noting a few factual innacuracies, which I have corrected per their enclosures.
Given that, it appears that any final determination regarding the use of the trailblazer falls back into the Fair Use guidelines here. For what it's worth, I have checked "What links here" and found it to be only route or bridge articles, or three user pages where it was either a notation of what one had uploaded/modified, or experimental pages (sandboxes), certainly all uses within which we would generally support. Fwgoebel 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- We couldn't use it on a with-permission basis anyway — that's been policy now for almost two years — since it wouldn't be freely redistributable. The Authority would have to formally change the licensing or release it, and they're not doing that (nor would I expect them to).
I think we should create a free-use alternative, perhaps using the same colors, an block of the state and the letters "NYST". I think we should do this not just for the Thruway but for any road where we're not allowed to use the logo outside of the article itself (PIP, LOSP). I might even create some of these myself. Daniel Case 19:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The LOSP shield isn't licensed under fair use, as it's the shield for a NY state parkway. =) I see your point though, and I agree with it. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
We're getting off-topic here - and that's part of what may have led to the confusion in the past few posts. Though, to weigh in on the subject: I would be opposed to creating any fictional image as that would be unencyclopedic. Better IMO to spell out what has been abbreviated (the full text Palisades Interstate Parkway, for example) in lieu of "PIP" or a small shield, Still, I don't buy any argument that the presence of a smaller-than-thumbnail image of a route's trailblazer is there solely for decoration (which was the argument for the removal of PIP and had been charged to be the case for the Thruway). TMF and I both strongly argued the cause of them being what they are--identification. I interpret “The (Thruway) Authority takes no position” as being up to both the Fair Use guidelines together with consensus as to the interpretation thereof. Fwgoebel 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- My inspiration was all those mock-logos that have put into userboxes (for Windows, Photoshop etc.) since fair-use images such as the original logos were no longer permitted in user space.
I can see not permitting them where, say, the Thruway has either 87 or 90 as a designation, but with, say, the Palisades, we don't have that issue. Maybe we should make shields with the reference route number? Daniel Case 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or how about just a white-on-blue rectangle with "THRU" for the Thruway and a white-on-brown "PIP" or "PAL" for the Palisades? Daniel Case 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- But thats non encyclopedic. I say we make replicas like we have done before. Jgcarter 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Generally, shields of state/US/Interstate highways - including state-maintained parkways like the Grand Central Parkway - are assumed to not be copyrighted since they're government works. Shields of privately maintained roadways like the Thruway and the Palisades are copyrighted, and a derivative work of a copyrighted work is still copyrighted.
- There might not be a harm in it, but it's still Wikipedia policy and/or the law. -- NORTH talk 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I thought that only applied to federal government product, though (i.e., the Interstate and U.S. highway shields, and the default circle). What's the grounds for state highway shields being public domain? (just thought I'd ask, not that they aren't or we wouldn't be using them). Daniel Case 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In most cases, the design is too old (pre-1989), assuming no copyright was registered. Vermont might give us a problem. We should be able to check in [1] (since none of the actual signs bear copyright notices), though I'm not sure how comprehensive that is. I'm actually not finding anything there; I don't know if that's because it's incomplete or because the Thruway never copyrighted the shield. --NE2 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well the Thruway shield is older than 1989...Jgcarter 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And? That means either the database is incomplete, I'm not looking properly, or it's not copyrighted. --NE2 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- After researching this one a bit, I think we can relax. All the states have to follow the federal MUTCD, which states very clearly that:
-
-
Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield.
Since all the state MUTCDs containing any unique shield specs (such as ours and PAs) are supplemental, they are of necessity public domain as well (which would make sense). The bit about the interstate shields has something to do with AASHTO claiming copyright for some reason. But it doesn't seem to stop anybody. Daniel Case 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Interstate shield is trademarked, but not copyrighted. --NE2 18:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Goodbye
Hello Fellow Wikipedians!
I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!
All the best!
Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!
[edit] Articles without talk pages
How many New York State Route articles don't have talk pages attached to them? I just added one for New York State Route 320, along with an NY 320 shield. ---- DanTD 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a good question that doesn't have an easy way to determine the answer. The only way to determine this is to check each article and ensure that it has been tagged, through the template's "what links here" or other means. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- An article without a talk page will have the "discussion" tab in red (non-existent internal link). Fwgoebel 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Newsletter
Due to other priorities in reality (gasp!), my editing time has become extremely limited and it is likely that there will not be a March issue. My apologies. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
