Talk:William Fox (New Zealand)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Does William Fox have a middle name ? If so, it'd have been helpful as this page could be moved to the new name and William Fox be made a disambig page. Currently many pages link to here expecting this to be the William Fox, founder of Fox Film. Jay 13:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, New Zealand's William Fox didn't have any middle name, no. As such, the article should probably go to "William Fox (New Zealand)", or possibly "William Fox (politician)". I think I'd probably prefer the first one, since Fox was involved in things other than politics, but either would be fine. Feel free to do whatever you think best. -- Vardion 13:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm truly foxed by so many identical names. The PM's son's name is also William Fox ? http://www.youngminds.org.uk/magazine/56/gough.php is fact or fiction ? It can be included in the article.
Also I found 8 William Foxes in IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/find?q=William%20Fox&nm=1&ex=1&nr=1). Jay 15:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The PM's son is sometimes called William, I believe, but most accounts that I've come across prefer to call him Wiremu (the Maori equivalent of William). The article is generally accurate, yes. As for all the actors, I'm not sure what to do about them. Perhaps we should just start with a disambiguation page for the Prime Minister and for the founder of Fox Film, and then let people add others if they feel the need. -- Vardion 00:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Does the photo fit our policy?

I'm confused. The caption under the pic says Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library...... must be obtained before any re-use of this image. However, Wikipedia:Copyrights says .........Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others........ There is clearly a use restriction so it is not free (in terms of available without condition) Or do I need a good sleep? Moriori 03:17, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that images are treated separately to text. I was going by the first section of this page, and the fact that we have a tag especially for cases such as this ({{msg:copyrighted}} {{WPTyneandWear|class=B|importance=high}} - "This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use."). See also this Meta page. There seems, however, to be a bit of debate about whether images need to be under GFDL, so perhaps someone more knowledgable about this than me could help clarify things. If it turns out that we do need the images (both on this page and on other PM pages) to be under GFDL, we'll have to remove them - the National Library has a fairly strict procedure for granting usage permission, and they didn't grant permission for these images to be used anywhere other than these specific pages of Wikipedia. -- Vardion 06:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
And there's the rub. Illustrations are no different from text. National Library can't tell Wikipedia users they can't use info they have alrrady allowed Wikipedia to use. Yes? No? Moriori 06:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
Well, the National Library allowed us to use the images on the explicit understanding that they wouldn't be used elsewhere (not with our consent, anyway). If we don't agree to that, we'll have to remove the images again, as we'd be in violation of the terms of use. The National Library never gave permission for anyone other than Wikipedia to use the images. I would argue, however, that Wikipedia's implementation of the GDFL does indeed treat text and images differently - the Wikipedia:Copyrights page says that "the text contained in Wikipedia is..." under GDFL, but doesn't appear to say that images are. There's also a section on the same page warning people that "fair use" images on Wikipedia might not qualify as fair use images if employed elsewhere - I would argue that "special permission" images fall into this category as well. But as I said, I'm not really an expert on all this. -- Vardion 12:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I think your first sentence says it all -- Nat Lib okays Wikipedia use of images provided they are not used elsewhere. That doesn't gel with Wiki GDFL policy. Regarding text v images, it is total content of Wiki information that is subject to GDFL The method of its presentation is only part of the total content. Cheers. Moriori 21:39, May 3, 2004 (UTC).. Anyway, I see User:Maveric149 has now removed the copyrighrt message , so no probs. Cheers. Moriori 22:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I think you're probably right - my interpretation was in error. I've made a comment at Wikipedia:Copyright problems about it, and the images will have to be deleted. Our permission is now null and void. Thanks for noticing this - I would never have realised that there was a problem. -- Vardion 00:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)