User talk:Meticuliz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:Michael dunn portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Michael dunn portrait.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Dunn ref. note formatting
I notice that you have now formatted the dates in the reference notes for the article Michael Dunn in a way that is neither how I found them nor what I changed them to (either time that I did so). I still say that the way I did them is how they are found in most Wiki articles with notes, but I won't change these. Since every thing else I did to them (quotes for article titles, italics for book/magazine/newspaper titles) you left in (it appears that the previous and total revert of my work on this was done by a third party [an IP #, not a name], but remember that when you originally put up the cites you admitted the formatting was "defective"), your edit summary, "...if you feel a need to mess with this!" is surprisingly harsh in its implicit and, especially given the compromise, unjustified criticism of me. Ted Watson (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
Thank you for using the discussion page. My original appeal concerned getting the references to post as foonotes at all, which I then amended to say I'd succeeded. I originally used scientific style for the references, then doublechecked and found that Wikipedia would probably prefer Chicago humanities style, so I switched to that for all newspaper articles referenced. I think the key things are to keep the style consistent and have a discussion before making changes, as recommended: "Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page...So, tread lightly, and seek consensus first, before converting citation styles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles Thanks for your contribution.Meticuliz (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Filmography and image
In answer to your question, you probably can get away without citing a direct source for the filmography, since these are lists of primary sources (meaning that in order to verify information, one need only view the film or TV show). Few filmographies are sourced that I've seen except in cases where disputed films are listed (i.e. ones where the actor is not widely known to have appeared, thereby requiring some proof be provided. Such as Geraldine Chaplin's cameo in the 1967 version of Casino Royale. Meanwhile, I see a bot has tagged the image of Dunn. The "no copyright notice" tag does NOT apply to images, only to films and TV programs, so it won't work. Press kit images are generally not allowed unless you get specific permission from the copyright holder or studio. It's a real challenge under the current Wikipedia rules to upload useable images. I no longer contribute images myself as a result. Pretty much the only images that are allowed are ones that are specifically released to the public domain (and you need documentation to prove it), are of an historic event, were taken before 1923, or were personally taken by yourself. This will make you scratch your head, but the rules prohibit the use of images strictly to show what the person looks like. Don't ask - that was the rule that made me go "to heck with it" myself. However, given that Dunn is deceased and is widely remembered for playing a specific role, you should - in theory - be able to get away with posting a screen capture of Dunn as Loveless from a Wild Wild West episode, since it can be argued that the article speaks specifically about this portrayal. Therefore the image is being used to illustrate that discussion, not just to show what Michael Dunn looked like. If all that make's sense to you, you're a smarter person than I as I got lost just typing it! PS. If you go to Image:EleanorPowell.JPG you can see how an image I uploaded was rescued by another user who posted some additional wording that made it useable. 23skidoo (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen the "no copyright notice prior to 1978" tag used before and it's always resulted in the image being deleted. It may not attract the attention of a bot, but there are users who literally spend all their time checking every single image. It may take awhile, but they'll get to this one. And if it uploaded after the spring of 2007 they are allowed to speedy delete the image on sight (images uploaded prior to this fall under a grandfather clause of sorts that require at least a week's notice be given to the original uploader so they can add the proper citations, etc. Also, there is another bot that is tagging images that don't have a suitable "image use rationale" template (which is separate from a tag). For an example of one that was just added, see Image:Saint Novel.jpg. As I have been told many times in my debate over image policy, photographs do not qualify under the "no copyright notice prior to 1978" rationale because most photographs don't actually carry a copyright notice; therefore they automatically default to being "presumed copyright" unless predating 1923 or being so widely circulated as to be considered ubiquitous like, say, images of the World Trade Center on 911. In answer to your second question, "Filmography" generally covers both TV and film. Whether to separate the two into separate lists is a matter of taste. 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re:press kit images. Doesn't matter, they still aren't allowed without permission. I've been arguing with Wikipedia on this point for 2 years. From what I understand the attitude is that press kit photos are intended for authorized publications, which means newspapers, magazines, and books. Websites like Wikipedia are not considered to be authorized publications because - unlike print publications - Wikipedia has no control over the images that appear on its articles. Someone could take an image on Wikipedia and use it to illustrate their own website, etc. That's one of the reasons why they're so strict on image usage. I don't disagree with that; my issue stems from the fact that they keep changing the rules every 6 months, it seems, meaning images that were considered perfectly acceptable in 2006 and no longer considered so in 2008. And that includes press kit photos without permission. One article I've worked on, Martin Lewis, needed an image, so I did what you did and uploaded an image from his online press kit. The image was deemed unsuitable under WP:FAIR and I ended up having to actually contact Martin Lewis directly and I had to get him to write a letter to Wikipedia giving them permission to use his photo, even though if a newspaper had used it, he wouldn't have cared. (Actually he didn't have an issue with Wikipedia using it, either - but Wikipedia still required his permission anyway). 23skidoo (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would have no idea who you'd contact for permission. That's part of the problem I have with the current policy. It's also worth noting that, while it's a common bit of philosophy that Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales' words are not to be taken as gospel, nonetheless there are a growing number of users who have adopted his attitude that he'd rather see an article with no images than any that are copyright violators. Some of the foreign-language Wikipedias have virtually no images at all, in fact. My suggestion is if you don't know who to contact, just leave the image as-is. If no one makes a comment, and the bot doesn't spot it, as far as I'm concerned no harm no foul especially since it can't possibly have any impact on the subject as he is deceased (plus it's a good photo and better than you'd get as a screen cap). As far as the infobox goes, there's a template that's used for them and to change it I believe you need to check with the Biographies Wikiproject (there should be a link on the article's talk page). I believe there was some talk about a cause of death field being problematic because of the need to cite a source for it. The BioWiki folks should be able to advise you on that, and perhaps also help you track down permission for the photo. 23skidoo (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re:press kit images. Doesn't matter, they still aren't allowed without permission. I've been arguing with Wikipedia on this point for 2 years. From what I understand the attitude is that press kit photos are intended for authorized publications, which means newspapers, magazines, and books. Websites like Wikipedia are not considered to be authorized publications because - unlike print publications - Wikipedia has no control over the images that appear on its articles. Someone could take an image on Wikipedia and use it to illustrate their own website, etc. That's one of the reasons why they're so strict on image usage. I don't disagree with that; my issue stems from the fact that they keep changing the rules every 6 months, it seems, meaning images that were considered perfectly acceptable in 2006 and no longer considered so in 2008. And that includes press kit photos without permission. One article I've worked on, Martin Lewis, needed an image, so I did what you did and uploaded an image from his online press kit. The image was deemed unsuitable under WP:FAIR and I ended up having to actually contact Martin Lewis directly and I had to get him to write a letter to Wikipedia giving them permission to use his photo, even though if a newspaper had used it, he wouldn't have cared. (Actually he didn't have an issue with Wikipedia using it, either - but Wikipedia still required his permission anyway). 23skidoo (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
