User talk:Cabe6403/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi there, I have removed your A7 tag from this article as I believe it has credible claims of importance, per my edit summary. decltype (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Darkarenascreeb.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darkarenascreeb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:InCaseOfFireCleansingSingle.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:InCaseOfFireCleansingSingle.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Myocardial bridge
Just a friendly note on Myocardial bridge. I declined your speedy deletion request because there was context -- it's clearly about a type of heart problem. If you think it needs to go, merging to another article or taking to AfD would be the best route. HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:C&CAlliedlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:C&CAlliedlogo.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:C&CSovietlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:C&CSovietlogo.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
A note regarding the WPVG Newsletter
Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009, and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.
Thank you!!
Thank you so much for welcoming me! I'm sure in time, probably a bit of time, I will become familiar with the inner workings here. I'm very excited about writing my first wiki, and funny thing is, I didn't realize I had started my own article already. I was under the impression that I was just playing in my own sandbox. I understand now I wasn't. OOPS! I appreciate your greeting and welcome. This site, as I read more and more on the inner wiki workings and etiquette, I become more and more intimidated. Maybe I'm just technically behind. But I'll hopefully catch up soon enough. Can you tell me where the actual sandbox is? Thank you!NHearn (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks!
Can I make a sand box of my own on my talk page? Um, I just realized....Do I have a talk page?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by NHearn (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
sandbox
Thank you for the help on making a sandbox of my own.
I apologize for not signing. I must have forgotten. Thanks for the heads up! NHearn (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Rococo School
Hi Do you know what happened to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rococo_School_of_Chocolate page? best, Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomxcoady (talk • contribs) 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:DSCN3571.JPG
File:DSCN3571.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Waterfall located at Rouken Glen park.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Waterfall located at Rouken Glen park.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue 
Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
|
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask why you requested these images are restored when you are not even placing them in an article? J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the article you refer to is the one they were originally in (the discography article) they really, really should not be there. I see you're in discussion with Hammersoft, above, so I'll leave it to him to explain why... J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really see why it would be. Why do you feel that one image would significantly increase reader understanding of thet topic? J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...Well done. You completely missed the point. I've already said I don't agree with that usage. I'm asking you, now- why is the single image needed in this case? I don't care what other articles do. The NFCC should not be rules to be gamed and dodged- we should all see the reduction of non-free content as a positive, we should all cringe every time we upload a non-free image... J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Was that a copy-paste? It may as well have been... J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, it does not. Why's the cover so important? J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not citing policy or opinion, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the necessity of the image. You appear to be finding that quite difficult. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you copy-paste arguments to me, do you really expect me to take them seriously? I'm not some newbie who needs a template telling them how things are done. In any case, as I have said, I was asking about that cover specifically. Are you able to tell me what the single image you intend to add adds to that article? Why is that image required for full, encyclopedic coverage of the topic? J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not citing policy or opinion, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the necessity of the image. You appear to be finding that quite difficult. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, it does not. Why's the cover so important? J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Was that a copy-paste? It may as well have been... J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...Well done. You completely missed the point. I've already said I don't agree with that usage. I'm asking you, now- why is the single image needed in this case? I don't care what other articles do. The NFCC should not be rules to be gamed and dodged- we should all see the reduction of non-free content as a positive, we should all cringe every time we upload a non-free image... J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really see why it would be. Why do you feel that one image would significantly increase reader understanding of thet topic? J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is the "identifying artwork of the album" required? The article is about the music of the series as a whole, not that album. It may be designed to go with the audio, but the audio was in turn designed to go with the visuals of the game- does that mean game screenshots are justified? Or that there should be music samples in gameplay articles? It is designed to compliment that album as a whole, but that album as a whole is not the subject of the article. Furthermore, the fact it exists is not a reason to use it. Why is it so important that readers know what this one album cover looks like? I honestly can't see any reason to consider the appearance of the one album cover as encyclopedic information that is required for a full understanding of the music of a videogame series. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. Just wow. So, fuck discussion, you're just gonna run off and do what you like anyway? And what on Earth do you mean, I'm not interested in videogame music? My first featured article is almost a videogame music article. In any case, what does it matter? What if I said that I can see you're not really interested in reducing the non-free content use on Wikipedia, should I then just ignore your arguments? (Also, will you please stop talking about "opinions"- this shouldn't be a matter of "this is what I think" "WELL, this is what I think"- this should be a matter of discussing the merits of the use of images and weighing them against the negatives, referencing our policies and guidelines as we go). My ability to assume good faith (or at least assume I'm dealing with a reasonable, mature and well-meaning adult) is being stretched. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A question
If a band, lets call them Awesome Dudes, has released 3 albums. Each is notable enough to be on wikipedia but not much more than start class. Each contains an infobox with various details and album art along with a couple of paragraphs of sourced text (so not just track listing, release date etc). If these articles where to be merged into one individual article say Discography of Awesome Dudes or Music of Awesome Dudes etc with a quick lead about the band and the history of releases, writing credits etc then 3 seperate sections each containing all the information from the previous 3 pages.
Questions: 1 - If titled Discography of... would this automatically make it a list? 2 - If the images used in the 3 articles infoboxes where 100% allowed on wikipedia, fair use and all that is fine, would it be permissible to use the 3 images in the one article?
Thanks for any input given Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think this one will be a matter of opinion; therefore, I will offer my own opinion, but leave the helpme open for others to comment.
- 1. It depends how you write the discography. A list is a list because it is mostly facts in a table format, rather than prose. It would be possible to write a discography in a more discursive format, and hence not be a list article. I suggest that you discuss these options on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or one of the sub-project pages.
- 2. No, it would not be permissible. There is a clear policy stating that record covers can only be used on the specific article about the specific record. In the same way, you cannot use a single cover on an album, or vice-versa.
- As I say, this is my own understanding, and I'm not a great expert on it. I'll ask others if they can add anything. Good luck with it all, Chzz ► 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Chzz chose to ping me about this, and I think you know the answer I'm going to give. No, it would not be permissable. A single image illustrating the whole of the topic (which is what an album cover does) is completely different from three images to illustrate the three different parts of the topic, which is what the "releases" article does. Such an article would be far better illustrated by an image of the band, as the band is the one thing the three releases have in common, and the reason they have been grouped together. (Other reasons too, but that wasn't the question...). As such, the covers would only be worth including if they themselves were significant enough for discussion and if, as you say, the album articles were never going to be more than start class, they almost certainly wouldn't be. Another point to consider is this- a decent article on a musician, especially a musician that has released only a few albums, will contain a significant amount of information on said albums. However, again, unless the cover itself is worthy of discussion, it's obviously not worth including. Take (I use my own articles because I'm familiar with them...) Connie Talbot. This contains a lot of information about her first release (more than many album articles, because I sunk a lot of time into the article) but I don't think anyone would be willing to suggest that it should include the album's cover. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Chzz ► 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Peace
Thankyou. I'm more than happy to make peace with you, and do not intend to follow this issue any further at this time. Hope all is well. Have a pint on me.
J Milburn (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the debate. The simple reality is that a local consensus on an article can not override the more global consensus of the project. The project has had a long standing practice of not permitting album covers in discographies. This is a discography. It's titled as such, and is included in Category:Video game music discographies. Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 notes that album covers are not to be used in discographies. There is no reason to separate out this article as being special and worthy of an exception. It's a discography, pure and simple.
I've started a section at WT:NFC where you can debate this. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_covers_in_a_video_game_discography
Also, I don't think you should be using Twinkle to revert good faith edits. I'm not 100% familiar with Twinkle, so I could be wrong, but I don't think it's supposed to be used in this way. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Cabe. You and I disagreed on the inclusion of the album covers. But, I wanted to take a moment and tell you that I appreciated how you kept your cool. I've seen many editors blow off the handle over this and similar issues. You didn't. Kudos! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
