User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2022/June

Deletion of ECU Health Logo

I wanted to talk about why the ECU Health Logo was deleted for "non-fair use" reasons. The logo was used at the top of the Wikipedia page to identify the company, which is, under my understanding, able for use under fair use. Since this was using the logo to identify the company in an editorial work, it falls under fair use as defined by US Trademark Law.

Any guidance as to why this was deleted would be appreciated. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Sheehanpg93: File:ECU Health Logo.webp wasn't deleted; it was just removed from the articles where it was being used by a WP:BOT bot because those uses didn't comply with non-free content use criterion #10c. Each non-free file is required to have two things as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation: (1) a file copyright license and (2) a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use. Although you did provide a copyright license for the file, it looks like you tried to combine two non-free uses into a single non-free use rationale which is not really allowed. When the bot was looking for a rationale for each of the articles you added the file to, it was unable to find one because you tried to add two article names to the |article= parameter in the non-free use rationale's template. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive that fair use as explained here and there are 10 criteria that each non-free use needs to meet for it to be considered policy compliant. Since the bot wasn't able to determine that a separate specific rationale had been provided for the file's two uses, it removed the file from each article. Personally, I think the non-free use of the logo could be justified in ECU Health, but I don't think the same can be said for ECU Health Medical Center. This is because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy encourages us to keep non-free use to a minimum as much as possible. Since one non-free use is already considered quite an exception to Wikipedia's general licensing policy per se, additional uses are thus considered to be even more exceptional and harder to justify. Generally with respect to corporate logos like this, non-free use is limited to the primary article about the parent entity (i.e. the main article) and using the same logo in secondary articles about child entities isn't considered acceptable per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. So, it would be OK to use a logo specific to the medical center in the article about it, but typically not OK to use the same primary logo (even if the medical center uses it) in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification! Sheehanpg93 (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit my sandbox again

Your edits are disruptive and could be considered vandalism, so please refrain from editing where you are not welcome. You can bring up issues on the sandbox talk page, if you have them. If you need help, please feel free to use my talk page and I will answer any question or help you to be a better editor. AggiesNeverLie (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not disruptive and I side with User:JJMC89, it was an WP:NFCC Violation WP:NFCC Policy #9 states that Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) Chip3004 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

O-Methylation

Could you point me to a discussion where the decision has been made to change all the names from "O-Methylat(ion/ed)" to "O-methylat(ion/ed)"? As I don't really care about the names in en.wiki, your edits resulted in changes to the labels in Wikidata, which I had to mass-revert. Wostr (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Gullurikya and Draft:Gullurikya

I found this in the review queue, didn't think it was ready for main space, and tried to move it to Draft:Gullurikya. What should I be doing? :D valereee (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Paramount Pictures films (2020–2029)

This has gone far enough! I see the Universal, Columbia, 20th Century and Warner Bros. logos on their respective lists of 2020–2029 films, so why doesn't Paramount Pictures?

XSMan2016 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Non-free content like File:Paramount Pictures (2022).svg needs to be used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. In the case of corporate logos, this generally means it's OK to use the logo for primary identification purposes in the main article about the company the logo represents, but using the same logo in other related articles becomes much harder to justify. Perhaps the reason the logos of the other companies you've mentioned above are being used in those other list articles is because they're not licensed as non-free content; thus, they're not subject to the same restrictions as the Paramount logo. Did you check to see whether those other logos are licensed as non-free content? It could also be that those other logos shouldn't be being used those other articles, and it's just that nobody has noticed them yet. Regardless of the reason, trying to justify the use of non-free content in one article based upon how you perceive how similiar files are being used in similar articles isn't always a great idea as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's ridiculous. XSMan2016 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot

Re. [1]: are we really not allowed to use screenshots of Wikipedia in discussions of what Wikipedia looks like? – Joe (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Why did you license the file as non-free? I think {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} should do fine. (talk page watcher) Jonteemil (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} would most likely be OK for text only content, but things become more complicated if the screenshot includes images. If any of the images are non-free, then the screenshot itself might also need to be treated as non-free; in that case, it could only be used in articles per WP:NFCC#9. So, it would probably better to avoid images that are non-free and instead use a screenshot that contains only text or one that contains only PD or freely licensed images. You should upload it to Commons and then make sure you properly attribute not only the Wikipedia page, but also the images using c:Template:Own based because their individual licensing may also require attribution. FWIW, non-free content is not really allowed to appear on the main page, so the images found there should be OK; you should, however, click on each image just to check. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I just selected the best option presented in the dropdown; {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} wasn't one of them. I didn't (don't) fancy running the Commons licensing gauntlet just to put a quick screenshot on a talk page, naively assuming that templates and bots are here to make editor's lives easier, rather than vice-versa... – Joe (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Are you saying that the bot is making it hard for you because it removes a, seemingly, non-free file from a place where it per WP:Non-free content can't be? Are you suggesting the bot should get AI and by itself identify when a non-freely licensed file actually is free?Jonteemil (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Since someone else has uploaded a different screenshot to use in that VPP discussion, perhaps File:Narrow Monobook.png and File: Narrow Vector.png are no longer needed. Since they're licensed as non-free and aren't being used in any articles, they eventually will end up be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 (by a different bot) and then deleted after five days if nothing is done. If, however, you want to save these for some reason Joe Roe, you're going to need to convert the files' licensing to something other than non-free. {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} should work: just edit the files' pages and replace the non-free licenses with "Wikipedia-screenshot". Then, you should add Template:Information to the "Summary" section of each file's page and fill out the template as best you can. For the |description= parameter, just describe what the screenshot is. For the |date= parameter, just add the dates the screenshots were taken. For the |author= parameter, you can use {{own}}. For the |source= parameter, things get a bit tricky since you need to attribute the source of the screenshot as well as each image shown in the screenshots. For the source of the screenshot, just provide a link to the page the screenshot comes from. For the images, there doesn't appear to be an Wikipedia equivalent to the Commons' template c:Template:Own based, but you can basically manually attribute the images in the same manner (e.g. [[file 1 name]] by file 1 author; [[file 2 name]] by file 2 author; [[file 3 name]] by file 3 author, etc. for each image). Once you've done all of that, you can also add {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} since the files should now be OK to move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine a more pointless use of time. – Joe (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Digimon Survive artwork.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Digimon Survive artwork.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Preventive and Social Medicine

Hi JJMC89. Hope you are keeping well. I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this article. However I see that you have moved this to draft space. The article is useful for students who pursue medicine in that field. Do I need to rename that article to move that back to main space. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: It looks like it was Slywriter (not JJMC89) who moved the article to draftspace. ––FormalDude talk 02:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Hi JJMC89.Thanks for your prompt response. Have a nice day. Gardenkur (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

JJMC89 Bot and "Extract" template transclusions

Hi JJMC89. JJMC89 bot seems to recently coming across more and more files being transcluded into articles and other pages by the template {{Extract}}. Perhaps this isn't a recent phenomenon, but it does seem more commons that before. Anyway, when the bot comes across one of these files, there's really nothing to remove from the violating pages since there's nothing but template syntax on that page; so, there's nothing for the bot to do. Adding the syntax "noinclude" to the page with the rationale seems to work in most cases, but I'm wondering if there's a better way to stop these transclusions from happening. For an aexample of what I'm referring to, see File:Arianespace logo.svg: it was being transcluded into Expendable launch system and History of spaceflight. FWIW, this used to happen mainly with portals, but now it seems to be more common in articles: nine files on the most recent update of User:JJMC89 bot/report/NFCC violations (61 files; Last updated: 12:23 am, Today (UTC+9)) were NFCC#10c violating transclusions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The default behavior for {{excerpt}} was changed. Now you have to set |freefiles=yes to remove non-free files. — JJMC89 07:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'll give that a try the next time I come across one of these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for blocking that IP.

Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Recreated article?

Hi, you deleted Top Gun (film series) per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gun (film series), for which I was the nominator. A similar article has been created at Top Gun (franchise). Can you check to see how similar.the two are? Thanks! BilCat (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat: While the previously deleted article had similar tables, none of the prose present in the new article was present in the previous one. — JJMC89 05:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that's what I needed to know. BilCat (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Littleprince.JPG licensing question

Hi JJMC89. I was discusing this file's licensing at User talk:Masem#File:Littleprince.JPG because the file seems to be licensed as {{PD-old-70}} but was flagged as a NFCC#9 violation by both the betacommand bot and JJMC89 bot. Since there's no non-free license or non-free use rationale on the file's page (maybe there should be), I was wondering why the bots are treating this as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. It is treated as non-free since it is in Category:All non-free media. Assuming it is correctly tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, it is non-free and needs a NFUR and non-free license. — JJMC89 05:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. The question then I guess is whether the adding of "Not-PD-US-URAA" was too bold. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)