User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2009/February

WikiProject Greater Manchester February Newsletter, Issue XIV

Delivered on 1 February 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Replaceable fair use Image:Dawn_Mill,_Shaw_0012.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Dawn_Mill,_Shaw_0012.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists of cotton mills

ClemRutter, I heartily applaud your efforts to obtain and upload imagery of a number of cotton mills. However, the vast majority of these images are here under fair use terms. We have strict limitations on the use of fair use imagery here. In particular, with regards to these lists articles, you should read and understand Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, which tell us to limit this sort of usage. If a particular mill is notable enough to have its own article, then by all means a fair use image of that mill would be appropriate on the article if no free license imagery existed and the mill has been demolished. However, in a list such is this, we do not permit such heavy use of fair use images. I've begun removing this usage [1]. Also note that the issue was raised at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#List_of_mills_owned_by_the_Lancashire_Cotton_Corporation_Limited, and one of the images is undergoing a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_29#Elder_Mill.2C_Romiley_Marple_0002.png. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal message re lists of cotton mills

I have split [[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft] personal message into sections so we can discuss each one fully. I appreciate the importance of Hammersofts rôle in the global organisation and the bruises he must receive in attempting to keep WP squeaky clean. In my posting this morning I identified five issues that needed clarifying- and it would be a pity if the debate reverted to a well rehearsed format. Though I am becoming more convinced, by reading the discussion that the page is correct,even if it weren't so, we would all become winners if the other four points were addressed. The points were:

1. Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
2. The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
3. The guidelines and the way they are laid out
4. how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
5. How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

Parallel to this editors on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester have suggested:.User:Jheald has a good idea of contacting the copyright holder and asking them to release their right to low level scans of the images. I explain the difficulty there - but I have got as far as making contact with two receptionists at Courtaulds UK who I will phone back on Monday midday, they are looking for the right contact person to speak to. I believe that will be the CEOs PA. Nothing may come of that. A further fact that may be relevant is I have used 55 images out of the 101 in the brochure which appear on 20 of the 55 pages.

• I wanted to take a moment to talk with you directly about this issue. It is not uncommon for people who are in opposition to an application of our fair use policy to raise issue with the application, claiming that there's nothing in the policy that strictly forbids X. I've seen this many times. Over and over again, this has been refuted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine were that true- a reference is needed. Looking at the target lists, I find that all the others relate to media. Non relate to Architecture, Social History, Industrial processes. I agree that Disney cartoon characters can be zapped if that is what we are talking about. I am in favour of the fair use policy as published but sek to see the exception clause to be applied in a different way. For a precedent, I would be looking for a reference to a list of concrete objects that existed and were photographed in 1950, but subsequently have been erased by natural disaster or economic decline. Can you provide me with such a reference to show that this list is not unique. (Point 1).--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's highly important to understand what Wikipedia is. Many people believe it's a free encyclopedia, and do not understand that "free" means in this content. The vast majority of people see Wikipedia as being no cost to them; they can read it, edit it, improve it, etc...all for free. No subscription fees like many other encyclopedias. No limitations if you have a free account vs. a paid account, because there are no paid accounts. This concept is "free as in gratis". People that believe that Wikipedia is free as in gratis are correct, but only partially correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in contention.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Far fewer people know and understand the concept of free as in libre. Yet, this is at the very core of Wikipedia. Free as in libre means anyone can use the content for any purpose, be it commercial or non-commercial, mass distribution or personal distribution, charge for it or not charge for it. This is an exceptionally powerful concept when it comes to an encyclopedia; no longer is knowledge hidden behind barriers of cost and copyright. Instead, everyone has access to the full sum of human knowledge. Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia said "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing" Without being free as in libre, that lofty aspiration is impossible to achieve.--Hammersoft (talk)

This has two implications. To me it is an obligation to share a unique resource with the world- almost a duty. The information stored in the images I have released, is not available in text form. Take Waterside Mill Ashton, this image is possibly the sole information that tells that it existed. From examination, we can surmise its purpose, the spindles used, the engine, and thus the lives of the of the 2000 or so souls who were supported by the mill. We can surmise statistics about births marriages and deaths.

In the article are extensive references to each mill but it is the image that gives life to these- the free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing (to twist the quote). Reading the above - I feel guilty about holding back the images on the other 35 pages. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking releasing every image was excessive. The images are released with a 10 point fair use disclaimer, which will warn any potential user that they must also consider their legal position before diseminating them further. Images of mine have been taken from commons and used commercially all across the world- always with a attribution. It is obvious that these are not CC or PD.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The more non-free content we have, the more impossible that aspiration becomes. See Gratis versus Libre and m:Open and free.--Hammersoft (talk)

I don't understand the logical leap that you make here, simply A does not imply B (can't find the formal logic symbol). But I am perfectly happy that trivia ands Disney images should be zapped.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• To support this aspiration, the Wikimedia Foundation has set a resolution regarding the use of non-free content. See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Note that this resolution, which ALL Wikimedia projects must hold to and can not be eroded by local projects (such as the English version Wikipedia), demands that fair use image use be minimal and used within narrow limits. We must hold to this. There are no exceptions. Minimal and narrow. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference here, this was the one I was looking for. This is what I wish to abide by, but the advisory note-- contadicts the wording of resolution 3, which says Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works . This article displays a historical event, artifacts at the high point of the organisations commercial power- its significance will be for future generations to assess, (but as the LCC was a quasi government body established at the end of the 1929 slump to try to stabilise and recapitalise a key industry I would suggest that Obama and Brown should be using it a precedent) and it does complement items of interest that were contempory in 1951. Resolution 3 uses the words limited exception- which is not the same as no exceptions. I am not trained in US law, but in the UK, short of case law that has passed through the appeal court that says other wise, by the test of beyond reasonable doubt or even balance of probabilities, this is saying that local projects may make exceptions.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Descendant from that resolution is our EDP, or as en.wiki calls it WP:NFCC. Within that policy it clearly states that such content must be used minimally. In this particular case, we have a single article comprising just 50k worth of content containing 50 non-free images. This is flatly unacceptable. There is no particular limit on the number of images allowed per article, and there is a reason for that, but there is no article on Wikipedia that has 50 fair use images on it. None. Have a look at User:Black Kite/NFList. Any article on that list with so many fair use images saw a massive reduction in the number of fair use images.--Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that I have hit the jackpot here and this is my moment of fame. I have checked the policy and see no mention in reference to lists. The term is used judiciously- ie prudently. Each image is an image of a working mill- producing cotton- not the derelict hulk or what it looked like when it had been converted into a ware house. The only doubtful image is that of Royds Mill, where there is a similar cropped image that does not show the full mill or the full croft- but considering that carefully I have to conclude the alternative image is arty not encyclopedic. I considered removing the arty image, but was sure that some one would challenge the 1950 image saying another one was available- so I kept the arty image as well, as it did not need to be removed, not being fair use.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• You're asking for an exception for a case where there's been plenty of other articles in a similar situation, and those other articles all saw image reduction. This is not an exceptional case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I referred to this before. Can you please give references to the precedents so they can be considered.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The general practice is that if thing X is notable enough to have an article of its own, and only fair use imagery is obtainable for thing X, then a fair use image can go on thing X for illustration purposes. However, the use of a fair use image of X in a list or any other article where the image is being used for illustration only is not supported. I am telling you what common practice is. This is common practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. !00% agree. Images should not be used for decoration. For instance, when I write the article about P.S.Stott- I cannot use a image from this page of any P S Stott mill- it must be used to make a particular point anbout a particular mill. On this page each unique image is a 1to 1 mapping of an item in the list, and adds visual information that is not as yet available textually- thus is 100% justified.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Now, as to individual mills. Frankly, many of these mills would never qualify for their own articles. From the article, only two of these (searching for "list") have been listed. I.e., most of these are non-notable buildings. The two that have listings deserve their own separate articles. The others most likely do not. In common practice, if thing X isn't notable enough for its own article, using a fair use image to illustrate it on a compilation article is not supported. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Six weeks ago, I would have agreed with you. Now I am not too sure. Please comment because this addresses Point 2. All places (villages) are deemed notable (I have lost the reference for this statement) all railway stations are deemed notable- a mill in its lime would have a workforce of several hundred and would support the same number again- in fact it is more significant than many villages I have documented (population wise), many mills supported urban villages. Windmills are deemed notable and have an infobox that includes the sort and quantity of material that each item in this list already has. Killick's Mill, Meopham is an example I know- though it is listed. The listed test is difficult to apply when the building has been demolished. The only other test for listing, is that the subject is considered notable if it is mentioned in a independent secondary source- here the secondary source is the book that I used for thses images- so all would be notable. Still the material is more accessible if it appears, as it does in this list. A quandary! You seem to be saying that if there was a page for each mill- then the images would then be acceptable. Is this true? --ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am telling you how things are. We can debate this forever, but the end result will be the same. I'm not training to force you into acceptance of something, just trying to make it clear that the result of this debate will be removal of the images from the list article. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be sad if you believed this statement, as you are going against the principle of -issues will be discussed on a case by case basis.--ClemRutter (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

All the above comments are directed at point 1. But the other four points need to be addressed. I hope that some of this discussion can be cut and pasted to provide an advice note explaining the policy (Point 3.)

Can we now point our attention to the other points. I am particularly keen to hear suggestions of other ways of publishing a unique archive under fair use.(Poitnt 2), and a robust system for tagging acceptance before publishing (Point 5)

• The short of it is; we don't publish archives of fair use content. Narrowly limited selections from an archive perhaps, depending on the situation...but not a voluminous quantity such as this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Arkwright Mill, Rochdale 0011.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Arkwright Mill, Rochdale 0011.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Atlas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0000.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Atlas Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0000.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cedar Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0001.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Cedar Mill, Ashton-under-Lyne 0001.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Empress Mill, Ince Wigan 0002.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Empress Mill, Ince Wigan 0002.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fox Mill, Hollinwood 0013.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Fox Mill, Hollinwood 0013.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Foxsons Mill, Staincliffe Dewsbury 0013.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Foxsons Mill, Staincliffe Dewsbury 0013.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Imperial Mill, Blackburn 0014.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Imperial Mill, Blackburn 0014.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Junction Mill, Middleton Junction 0004.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Junction Mill, Middleton Junction 0004.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mill photographs listed for deletion

The Mill photographs have 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)