User talk:Explicit: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is approximately 9:54 AM where this user lives (South Korea). [refresh]

Could you undelete this one, please? I meant to re-add it to its article but didn’t change the file extension, so now we’re favouring a PNG file that somebody added into Yale School of Medicine instead of the SVG I uploaded. Thanks, odder (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Odder:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit, its me again. You deleted this file on the back of this discussion. The main reason given for its deletion was lack of understanding. This image is the official logo for the 2024 Indian general election (www.https://elections24.eci.gov.in/) Shouldnt such images be there on the respective wikipedia pages? I understand that the infobox currently does not support election logos, but it had found space whithin the scope of the article. As a pic, it has served its purpose of being the official logo so I dont see why it should not be there. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit Pharaoh496 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh496: I'm not seeing how its use in the article was justified in accordance with WP:NFCC. It was used decoratively in the body of the article and the logo lacked sourced critical commentary to meet the contextual significance criterion. ✗plicit 11:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the 2019 Indian general election has its logo below the infobox. They are used in such a way because the infobox is not equipped to include a logo. This, however should not be the reason for the exclusion of the logo from the article itself, and kept there temporarily till the infobox gets that parameter, or either stays there below the infobox in perpetuity. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh496: Other stuff exists is not an indication that the other logo is justified by policy. I have nominated it for deletion. The infobox not possessing a parameter for election logos is probably a sign that their use is not justified. ✗plicit 13:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting your deletion of the file of a photo of an elected official, citing unauthorized copyright. This file originated from the following government website https://www.bexar.org/719/Precinct-4-Commissioner-Tommy-Calvert

Please show the state or local statute applicable to the County of Bexar protecting this image from use on Wikipedia. GarrisonNeely (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GarrisonNeely: Works by state governments are not automatically released under a free licensed. Few state governments relinquish the rights of works created by its employees; Texas is not one of them. ✗plicit 11:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NomadBSD was deleted (by you) three years ago. However, it's a popular BSD distribution now, with unique features: in my opinion it deserves an article. I suggest recreating the page; I can do it myself if that's ok with you guys. Eritr (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eritr: Well, the article only contained one reference at the time of its deletion, which was a link to the operating system's own website. If you can produce the three best sources that show significant coverage from reliable sources, you are technically free to create the page. Personally, I would suggest creating a draft and submitting it through the articles for creation process, but that decision is ultimately up to you. ✗plicit 11:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created a stub but, a few minutes later, I got a G4 speedy-deletion notice. Eritr (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day Explicit

I hope you are well. I saw in my notifications that you had left a comment for me but when I cam to your page it says the comment has been deleted or removed. Could you please put the comment back so that I can take your advice about my page. My page was poorly sourced by whoever wrote it and I can remedy that.

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit worried about this web page that I found online. Do you know how this would have happened?

https://fynamicswealth.com/?_=%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FKarin_Van_Der_Laag%23V0DO5QRBtCHGNb1bRZ9EH02dqhz%2FHNyR Karinvanderlaag (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. @Explicit, please delete user page such as User:Or3omimi 5 because CSD G5. Thanks. 36.78.197.242 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit,

I hope all is well!

I am contacting you (hopefully in the right way) to contest the deletion of my Wikipedia page "Can Man Dan". I'm not sure why it was deleted, but I happened to notice its removal today when I was speaking at a school and we were trying to pull up some information and relevant news stories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_Man_Dan

Believe it or not, that article helps me fundraise for a variety of free community events in Alberta -- it's a nice way for people to see our (my team and I) history as do-gooders. I would love to have it back if possible? I may not be famous worldwide, but people know me up in Canada -- which I'm not sure counts lol

I saw that it was self-gratifying or whatever you posted, and I can tell you that I don't edit my own page lol. I barely know if this is the best way to get a hold of you to contest this deletion.

Anyway, thank you for your consideration and God bless.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

"Can Man Dan" Daniel Johnstone 2604:3D09:9282:6C90:711B:F76F:B8CF:8220 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I created this account if you need to get a hold of me! DanielJohnstone (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielJohnstone: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 03:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, Xplicit! You really helped a brother out -- thank you. God bless and much love. DanielJohnstone (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Since you extensively work in this field, I wanted to ask: is using a non-free album cover inappropriate when the topic of the article is not the album / soundtrack itself? Yes, it can be added after creating a separate article for it, but what if the album is not notable enough to have its own dedicated article and only exists as a sub-section of another? Can it be used after appending a valid rationale explicitly stating that it will be only used in a single article to illustrate the appearance of the said work? Thank you. Lunar-akaunto／talk 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunar-akaunto: Hi, in general, it's not appropriate to use a non-free album cover on any page other than in the infobox of the article about the album itself. ✗plicit 12:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm bordering on the guidelines themselves, but it's just that I never gave this much thought before. Can there be exceptions to this, say, if a consensus is reached on the talk page of the said article? Contextual significance says to use it when it would increase the readers' understanding. That clearly justifies the use in an article where the album itself is the topic, but I don't understand how it does not apply to an article where the album is listed as a sub-section of another. The cover still remains very much inferior to the original and, in no way, is detrimental to the original work. Lunar-akaunto／talk 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more important thing: the template does not say anything about this, but I wanted to ask just how many extra covers can be used in an album's infobox. I see alternative covers being used left and right; can there be a second alternative cover added if it is substantially different from the previous two present? My conscience says going over 3 would be overkill, no matter how different the covers may be, but I think it's already not so wise to speak of adding a second alternative cover. What do you think of this? Lunar-akaunto／talk 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunar-akaunto: There have been several RFCs in the past about the subject, which is explained in detail at WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Consensus has time and time again that the use of album covers anywhere outside of the album article generally do not meet the contextual significant criterion.

Regarding the use of a second extra album cover, I can't say that I'm aware of any examples off the top of my head. I do vaguely remember many years ago a discussion at FFD regarding seven very different additional album covers by a European singer, and I'm pretty sure all of them were deleted because none of them were critically discussed in the article. ✗plicit 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. One last thing, since this seems to depend on the context and significance of the cover on the section, do you suggest I try proposing adding the cover to the article's talk page? Lunar-akaunto／talk 15:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seven covers?! That's not something I could think of.

Anyhow, thank you for your help. Lunar-akaunto／talk 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just going to add the following to what Explicit posted above. The first is that a local consensus can't supersede a community-wide one; in other words, article talk page discussion can't take precendence over established community-wide policy or guidelines just because it's what those discussing on the talk page might want to do. The second one is that even though the people making templates like {{extra album cover}} have really made some things easier, they sometimes either don't give much thought to or intentionally avoid going into too much detail in the template's documentation as to how policies related to image use might impact the use of the template. There are lots of templates that have an image-related parameter, but it's really the responsiblity of those wanting to use an image in a template (not the template's creator) to make sure doing so complies with relevant policies related to image use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Yes, exactly; that's what I thought as well, which is why I asked here. Thank you for linking to the template; it was helpful. About the template creators specifying the use in the template, when i said the template does not say anything about this, what i meant was not to imply that the template should mention it or question the creators' choice but just a query since it doesn't mention it. I totally understand that just because a parameter exists and is there does not mean that it should or can be used. Anyhow, my doubts regarding this are cleared now.

If you don't mind, see, I understand one exception to using cover art where the album itself is not the topic of the article is where adequate and properly sourced commentary is provided. Do you thin it is appropriate to add the cover art for The Garden of Words#Soundtrack? My reasoning for this is that the album is not very well known; it was never released as a standalone album and was released only bundled with the movie. To date, the album is digitally exclusive to Japan. I think it'd be helpful to readers in recognising the said album, as even the web doesn't filter many results. Not being well known, in turn, might raise concerns about piracy, but that's already countered by using a low resolution cover that is very inferior to the original.

One last thing: do you think there are any chances of this being approved if a consensus is appealed to the community? Is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content talk page the right place to propose it? thank you. Lunar-akaunto／talk 06:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer your questions in reverse order since the second one is easier to answer. Proposals to change policy or general questions as to how it's applied should be made/asked at WT:NFCC, whereas discussion related to an individual file and how it's being used should be made a WP:FFD.

Regarding The Garden of Words, I think there's zero chance of such a non-free use being cosidered policy compliant; not only because of WP:NFC#cite_note-3 that Explicit mentioned above, but also because of WP:FILMSCORE. So, unless there's something about the cover art itself (i.e. some controversy or other reason) covered in some depth by reliable sources, none of the reasoning you posted above would (again in my opinion) rise above the level of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use. Even in that case, such content would be more appropriate for a stand-alone article about the album or perhaps a stand-alone article about the artist/creator/designer of the cover art. If you tried to add a non-free album cover to that section, the file would likely be WP:PRODded for deletion as clear-cut violation of relevant policy. You could WP:DEPROD it, but I don't see a consensus being established for in favor of its inclusion at FFD. As for being digitally exclusive to Japan, I'm not sure how that's even possible given today's technologies, but it might also not even be true because of this, this, this and this (assuming that's the same soundtrack). Finally, even the track list in that section probably shouldn't be there per "WP:FiLMSCORE". -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Mmm I see. But, well, it's fine. I just wanted a third opinion, and I can agree with what you said. It's not something major, so I'll drop the idea of adding the cover and get on the same boat as you and @Explicit.

Okay, so I didn't originally add the listing here; it existed long before, but considering it is a good article, the reviewer or others probably considered it, right? i don't ever recall reading WP:FILMSCORE. This is the first time someone's pointed me to it. Though i must admit this doesn't excuse me from adding listings, I have done it very often. So, I'm genuinely confused now. Is it walking the thin line when adding the listing themselves? I mean, we're not streaming the audio, and we have already omitted the cover where possible, so how is it detrimental to the original work?

About the release, what you listed in 3 of the links is Kotonoha (言ノ葉) by Motohiro Hata, who sang the theme song for the film (it is not the official soundttrack to the film but a single by Hata, which too was exclusive to Japan until recently; it only received a global release last year). What I was talking about was The Garden of Words Original Soundtrack (言の葉の庭 サウンドトラック). To date, it is exclusive to Japan, for whatever reason the label knows. It is one of my favourites, but it's a shame the label never went for global release. (the 4th link is unofficial and was uploaded by some random user, but it still remains that sources like that are what allowed me to listen to the soundtrack in the first place, but it's fine because the profits still go to the label). Lunar-akaunto／talk 15:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Explicit, could you please explain to me how the former logo of NI Railways (Northern Irelands State Owned Railway company was not fair use). It was in the public domain. I am not saying you're wrong to remove it. It's just NI Railways had three logos throughout its life the original one on the page as we speak, the one you deleted that was used until 2021, and the current one presently used. If this version of the logo cannot be replaced, could you suggest another way to incorporate into the Wiki page "NI Railways". Many Thanks RooneyDonal21 13:47, 15 June 2024 (IST)

@RooneyDonal21: Hi, the file you linked was tagged as fair use; only the current infobox image is tagged as being in the public domain. ✗plicit 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O right, is there any way to get the image back in a different copyright or it is gone for good RooneyDonal21 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15 § X by ethnic or national origin on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]