User talk:Flickerd/Archive 4

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

AFLW fixture

Hi,

Just wanted to get your thoughts on the 2017 AFL Women's fixture.

For what it's worth, the GWS Giants have the most commercially challenging fixture as they are the only team not to have a home game against either Carlton or Collingwood, two teams that traditionally draw high crowds in the men's competition, and have only three home games out of seven, though I suspect that the teams who have only three home games in 2017 will get four in 2018 (and vice versa) – in this case, Brisbane, Collingwood, GWS and Melbourne. Similar to how the men's fixture is planned, I also think that team performance in the women's competition could also decide who gets more home games, more marquee games in 2018 and vice versa.

MasterMind5991 (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: I haven't thought about it too much to be honest, but I reckon you're right about the home games of 4vs3 and potentially swapping each year, and team performance impacting the next years' draw. They probably did the fixture based on men's competition crowd statistics and which games will draw a crowd; in saying that though, I don't think pre-existing support will have a huge influence, for example, if I were in Melbourne during the comp I wouldn't be more inclined to go to a Melbourne FC game, but I would probably attend every match just for interest sake. I think people are very interested in what's going to happen and there's a lot of unknown at the moment, I'll definitely be a keen watcher, but more as a spectator than a supporter at the moment. Flickerd (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the fairest thing to do would be to give the four clubs that have only three home games this season, four in 2018, so as to "even" things out (if you know what I mean by that). It's still only early days, so we can't exactly predict what will happen with the women though I think Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs will be two of the strongest teams given they were the pioneers (if you like) for AFL Women's. If it becomes a success in the coming years they might look at expanding it, in the short term that could mean adding one extra team (raising the number of teams from eight to nine) and adding two extra rounds (seven rounds to nine, with one team having a bye each round; this means every team gets an even share of home and away games) to the fixture.

While the top team will get hosting rights for the Grand Final, where to play it is the interesting point. From what I know the Grand Final is scheduled for Saturday 25 March, and if a Victorian team finishes top then it would be most obvious to play it at the MCG (as a curtain-raiser to the Essendon vs Hawthorn men's match, which is a free-to-air match); but what if any of the interstate clubs finish top? Take into account the Adelaide vs GWS men's match is on the Sunday at the Adelaide Oval, while Fremantle plays Geelong later that day and the Brisbane Lions are away to Gold Coast on the previous night. I think either way, it will remain on Saturday and it's possible that it could be played at the G like I suggested. MasterMind5991 (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: I think Fremantle will be the team to beat by a mile. WA and VIC have the strongest talent for female footy and the Vic talent is diluted across four teams, whereas the WA talent is only in one team, making it stronger. In addition, Michelle Cowan is apparently a fantastic coach. I haven't heard much about the GF, but it'd be great if it is at the MCG, I wonder if they will have it at the home ground/state of the top team or if it will be a fixed place like the MCG with the AFL. I guess we'll find out. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Flickerd. I'm just posting to let you know that Keith 'Bluey' Truscott Medal – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 24. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: that's great, thanks heaps. Flickerd (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Flickerd. Keith 'Bluey' Truscott Medal looks awesome, it will be great to see a MFC article on the main page! I'm just coming back after being MIA for half a year or more and it's great to see all the improvements you've made to MFC and AFL related pages. I'll get around to adding page numbers to List of Melbourne Football Club players shortly, which I also see you've done work on in the last year. Let me know if there's anything else I said I'd get around to and have completely forgotten about... Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Good to have you back, I was wondering if you were going to haha. Yeah the page numbers is something that I've tried to update but do find it a bit tedious, so I've put it down the bottom of my to do list... Welcome back! Flickerd (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

qualification column in table

Hey mate, the qualification column in the table references the position, not the team. It's not WP:CRYSTALBALL, because those positions will qualify for whatever it says (top 2 for AFLW Grand Final, or top 8 for AFL finals series). See examples of A-League, Israel PL, Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etc. I'll also point out that in the years before the implementation of the Lua module, even mid-season the top 8 were coloured green (as they still are now). Just colouring with no explanation is even more confusing IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I feel it creates confusion as most people who view Wikipedia aren't aware of specific template structures and the intended usage of templates based on what transpires in talk pages, for example, when I first saw the module, it looked like to me the teams that are coloured have qualified for whatever is in the qualification column (i.e. finals series, grand final). It's not at all clear that it's based on position and not team, and considering I thought it was that way for over a year, I would say it's safe to say that the casual viewer of Wikipedia could also have that interpretation. There has obviously been a consensus to do it that way in the association football project (as evidenced by all the examples used), but considering in footy there is such an emphasis on which team is in the eight, I think it's very open to interpretation having finals series in the qualification column and is very ambiguous to the casual Wikipedia viewer. I personally don't like the usage of colours until the top eight is finalised, but there seems to be such an emphasis in the league on who is in the top eight that week and I just kept it based on the previous template and for consistency. It's probably better to not have colour at all in the women's one until at least one team is definitely going to finish in the top two, and I prefer it that way anyway. Flickerd (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that the solution is to have no marking at all. I would think people viewing the page would want to know how many teams make it to the playoffs. To compare with a non-wiki format of displaying, in newspapers here in Israel, when the league table is shown in the paper, they have the top playoff teams bolded and in some of them label the top and bottom playoff. --SuperJew (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I think we'll have to agree to disagree on it; I'm just going to leave it as is with the colour, even for the women's so there is some sort of marking. At least with footy there is only one major league in comparison to the many that there are in association football, and most people would probably know that the amount of teams in the finals is eight in the AFL. I perfectly understand the need for it in association football with the amount of different leagues and the different types of playoffs in different leagues, but I don't think it's necessary (and actually damaging for confusion reasons) for the AFL one. Flickerd (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I'm going to add a note on the 2017 AFL women's season page to say that the top two teams will play in the grand final as opposed to a finals series, this sits just below the ladder too, I'm just trying to find a ref.... Flickerd (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New infobox parameters

Hey. Re this edit, please see this notice. Due to accessibility reasons, please try to use the numbered parameters for club/years/games_goals instead of the old parameters, as the old parameters make the infoboxes impossible to read for those using screen readers (i.e. visually-impaired readers). All AFL articles will be converted to the new parameters shortly. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

FFC

In your haste to correct the tone of purple you've removed the white chevrons from the home uniform and the purple chevrons from the away uniform, which is more important than the tone of purple. I'll give you the opportunities to fix your error before I revert. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: I might be completely missing something and/or looking at something different, but I cannot see any difference in the uniforms/chevrons from before the change in purple to now, I don't know if it's something to do with diff computers, but it's still there for me. On another note, an edit summary initially on your behalf would have been helpful as a opposed to a straight up revert, i.e. if you'd said the white chevrons are missing then I'd have looked more closely at if there was a mistake made. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I just had a look on my phone too just to be sure and they're definitely there. Flickerd (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Richmond player template not functioning

Hey mate,

I was wondering if you can help me fix the Richplayer template. It's not linking correctly because the club's website doesn't recognise the uppercase names anymore. The exact same links in lowercase work but I don't know how to edit the template properly to fix this. Not sure if this is something you could help with but thought I'd give it a shot anyway.

Thanks, Tigerman2612 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2017 (AEDT)

(talk page stalker) I've fixed it I think (you may need to purge your cache), this was effecting the templates from every club. Things would be easier if the AFL left redirects in place when they renamed their pages... Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jenks24: @Tigerman2612: I'm so happy you fixed it Jenks24, I brought it up about two months ago at WT:AFL without an answer and have tried to look up how to fix it without much avail, I was really hopping I wouldn't have to go through all the transclusions and manually add the lower case link. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Copyright policy?

Is it not a violation of copyright policy to revert an article back to a disambiguation page and create the article elsewhere? It seems to me it might have been better to have moved the article to Kate McCarthy (footballer), then re-created the disambiguation page. I guess then we would have lost the editing history of Kate McCarthy... I'm not sure, but it seems Jjamesryan should get credit for creating the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: I don't think it's a copyright policy because everything written by users on Wikipedia is free content and no one owns a page, but rather perhaps not the best way to do it depending on opinion. I wasn't meaning to take credit for the creation of the page and the reason I did it that way was because there was a greater version history for the disambiguate page as opposed to the football article which was created that day and only had two edits. I'm not sure if there's a correct way to do it in this case (and please point to if there is), but it was all done in good faith. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:C and WP:COPYWITHIN. Personally, I think that an article is of greater concern than a disambiguation page in terms of maintaining the edit history. There is creativity and originality in an article, whereas a disambiguation page is merely administrative. It's a pity there is no "Copy" function, because that would have been perfect (copying the article to Kate McCarthy (footballer) and then reverting at Kate McCarthy). Anyway, I've seen your edits and I know it was in good faith. Thanks! Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: I'll take note of what you've said for the future. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Kate McCarthy

It seems to me the footballer is absolutely the primary topic. The character's link has no information apart from the actor and year the character appeared, and the director has even less — that she directed one show which an actress appeared in. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 07:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jjamesryan: Hi, I have seen on multiple occasions this sort of argument in relation to primary topic and disambiguate pages, and even times when every link bar one is a red link, it is still kept as a disambigute page and the one blue link has a dab. If Kate McCarthy had the exposure of Daisy Pearce, for example, then she would definitely be the primary topic. Considering there is a character from a popular TV show with the same name, then people may also search that term with the intention of finding the character Kate McCarthy, in addition (before I made the edit) I google searched the name Kate McCarthy and the person box and first five hits were to Kate McCarthy the author (even though my google search bias gears towards football), so there's three people that users may search for on Wikipedia (not including the director too). From every discussion I've seen relating to this, nearly every has resulted in, unless the person is without any doubt the primary topic, then it doesn't matter if the other people are redlinks, they're still plausible search terms and the name in isolation should be a dab page. There's four people (including the footballer) where each is a plausible search term, so I don't think Kate McCarthy the footballer is the primary topic, however, if you still feel otherwise, you're more than welcome to open a move discussion. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to open a discussion. No disrespect to you or your opinion, but to me, the footballer still looks like the primary topic. Precedents also seem odd. Feel free to weigh in. Thanks, Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Collingwood Football Club

Why do you think these articles are not stubs? There is loads of information in them.Rathfelder (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Hi, I brought up quite a while on WT:AFL how the project should be rating season articles as I felt they should be start articles, all the responses said that in order to be rated that way, then there needs to be enough prose and not just list items such as results/awards/ladders and so on. The Collingwood articles only have about 150 words of prose on the page and the rest of it is list items; a good example of where a season article isn't a stub is 2017 Hawthorn Football Club season (note the amount of prose in club summary, senior personnel and fixture summary) and 1987 VFA season. I'm going by what the consensus is for the project. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Five minute time shift

I'd call the heat policy time shift uncommon, but not unusual. Heat policy is a pretty standard thing (not like that time they moved a game to avoid a clash with a Black Caviar race). In my opinion, a heat policy time shift is just clogging the game notes. Aspirex (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aspirex: It's more about the time shift due to weather that's highly unusual because it nearly never happens during the home and away season, the last time I can think of a time shift during the season was the opening round of 2014 when there was torrential rain. In addition, I can't remember the last time the heat policy was implemented during the home and away season and consequently causing a time shift. If it was the pre-season then it isn't notable as it happens nearly every year, but not during the home and away season. With the broadcast deals, alterations to the schedule are nearly always a last resort (but this time shift was most likely done to accommodate the 6.00pm news start), so it is an unusual thing. Flickerd (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

All it boils down to is "there was a hot day in late March". I fear this is setting a very low bar for inclusion. Aspirex (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

AFLW All-Australian

Hi,

I noticed you included Bec Goddard as the coach of the All-Australian team on the 2017 AFL Women's season article. Was this officially announced, or did you only include her because she won the premiership? I haven't seen it anywhere. Thanks, Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 06:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jjamesryan: Hi, I remember reading it on twitter a couple of days ago that she was the AA coach. In addition, I'm pretty sure the same rules apply with the premiership coach with the AA as the AFL has been treating the awards nearly identical to the AFL men's comp. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

new pics on Collingwood players' pages

Great work on the new pics mate! Some of them have been a long time coming 😉 (like Bucks for example) --SuperJew (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@SuperJew: thanks heaps, I appreciate it. Flickerd (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam Powell-Pepper

Hi, can you please keep an eye on Sam Powell-Pepper's page, as some IP address has twice reverted an edit of mine in which I removed a comment that is completely false. Check the history of that page and you'll see where I am coming from. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks, MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: no worries I'll help keep an eye on it. Also just letting you know that you won't be in violation of WP:3RR if you keep fixing it as it's blatant vandalism. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Long (footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfax. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Flickerd (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

2018 fixture

I know it's way too early to be talking about (or speculating over) how the 2018 fixture will unfold, but here are some points of interest that have come up in my head:

Anzac Eve (April 24) and Anzac Day (April 25th) both fall on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively next year. The last time Anzac Day fell on a Tuesday prior to this year was 2006, and in that year, the Anzac Day match was the last match played in the round, while in Round 5, 2007 and Round 5, 2012 (when Anzac Day fell on a Wednesday in both years) it was the first match played in the round. And given the success of the Anzac Eve fixture between Richmond and Melbourne (which next year is a Melbourne home game), I think it's fair to say that it will continue in 2018.
- Here's the catch. In one's mind, the Anzac Eve match would be played on a Tuesday night in the round belonging to the weekend of April 20-24 (round five), while the Anzac Day match would be played the following day in the round belonging to the weekend of April 25-29 (round six). This would lead to the oddity of one round finishing on one day (Tuesday) and the next round starting the next (Wednesday).
- I think the AFL could establish a split round for the Anzac round, starting Friday, April 20 and concluding on Sunday, April 29 (or Saturday, April 28). The structure would be as follows:
  - Friday, April 20 - Match 1 (Seven)
  - Saturday, April 21 - Match 2
  - Sunday, April 22 - Matches 3 (Seven) and 4
  - Tuesday, April 24 - Melbourne vs Richmond (Seven)
  - Wednesday, April 25 - Collingwood vs Essendon (Seven)
  - Friday, April 27 - Match 7 (Seven)
  - Saturday, April 28 - Match 8
  - Sunday, April 29 - Match 9
    - Note there were five free-to-air matches in Round 5 this year.
- This would, however, eliminate the pre-finals bye between round 23 and the first week of the finals. Otherwise, retaining it would push the Grand Final back to Saturday, October 6, and this would be the latest date for an AFL Grand Final since 1990.
- It would also mean that the start of the season would have to be put forward by at least one weekend, possibly to that of March 16-18, in order to cater for the bye rounds and the pre-finals bye (assuming it is retained for 2018). However, the MCG isn't likely to be available for that weekend, so the traditional Thursday night opener between Richmond vs Carlton at the MCG would have to be played in round two, as it was in 2014.
- If the Anzac round is split like I proposed above, the bye rounds would have to take place roughly between rounds 16-18, so as to 'balance' out the fixture.
- Taking all the above into account, we would be faced with:
  - Round 1 (Opening round): March 16-18
  - Round 3 (Easter): March 29-April 2
  - Round 6 (My proposed Anzac split round): April 20-29
  - Round 7: May 4-6
  - Round 8 (Mother's Day round): May 11-13
  - Rounds 16, 17 and 18 (split rounds): July 6-8, July 13-15 and July 20-22 respectively
  - Round 23 (Final round): August 24-26
  - Pre-finals bye: weekend of September 1-2
  - Finals week one: September 7-9
  - Grand Final: Saturday, September 29
The AFL is already facing a massive headache over the first few rounds because Metricon Stadium will be unavailable until at least round eight, forcing the Gold Coast Suns on the road for the first seven weeks. Additionally, the GWS Giants will also be forced on the road for the same period of time because Spotless Stadium will be unavailable due to the Sydney Royal Easter Show.
- In 2006, the season started late because of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, which ruled the MCG out of action until Round 4. This meant some teams such as Melbourne, Collingwood and Hawthorn had to play home games at (what was then known as) Telstra Dome. One solution could be that the Suns temporarily play some home games at the Gabba like they did in 2011 (because Metricon was not yet completed when they entered the AFL that year).

Also, on the AFLW fixture, I think that this year's fixture could be 'flipped' for the 2018 fixture, so that it is an exact reversal of the 2017 fixture. This means hosting rights would alternate every meeting (for example, Fremantle would host GWS in Perth next year because GWS had already hosted their first meeting this year, while Melbourne would host Adelaide and vice versa) and this would give the teams that had three home games in 2017, four in 2018 and vice versa.

A short term solution to this anomaly would also be, when the time comes for expansion, to add just one team to make up a nine-team line-up.
Because of the addition of a ninth team, there would be two additional rounds to the fixture (up from the current seven), which would see each team play eight games (four home and four away) and also have a bye. That would equal things out, if you know what I mean.
Qualification for the Grand Final would remain as it is (that is, the top two teams with the higher-ranked side hosting it).

I'd like to get your thoughts on the above points if possible. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: you've definitely put a lot of thought into it! I haven't even begun thinking about next year, even though it will probably be better for Melbourne, oh the injury woes we have :(. In regards to the ANZAC round, it's an interesting idea having the split round, but personally I reckon they'll have it all in the same round and the Wednesday (ANZAC day) will finish the round. Then you have the impossible prospect of a four day turnaround if Coll-Ess play on Sunday, and you can't have two matches on Monday to accommodate Coll-Ess. I think they're definitely keeping the ANZAC eve clash from what I've heard in the media. It's a tricky situation the AFL will have to figure out and it'll be interesting to see what they do, but I don't think I can offer much of an opinion because I honestly don't know what the best way to do it will be and I do see the split round as problematic based on the points you've made.

As for the AFLW fixture, I think you're pretty close, they'll probably try keep it fair. Performances from 2017 probably won't have as much of an impact compared with fixturing the men's comp as every team plays each other just the once. Flickerd (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Stubs

The question of whether an article is a stub has to be considered in the context of its possible development. I know nothing about the topic - but I find it hard to see what more could be written about 2016_AFL_Mark_of_the_Year and similar articles. If you think the article is finished then it isn't a stub.Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, in regards to the mark of the year articles, more can be written in regards to the background of the award and the voting procedure (there's more than the one sentence that's in the lead) just at a minimum. It's in my long list of things to do to try fix up some of these AFL stubs as what tends to happen a fair bit in WP:AFL is that editors contribute to list items such as results, awards and so on and there are many articles that lack prose where more can be written. It's an unfortunate thing that does happen in the project as there aren't many active editors in comparison to other sports. There's been a consensus in the project that the amount of prose should be the determination of whether an article is a stub or not and list items aren't included in that (common pages where this tends to happen are season and award pages). If there's a situation where very little more can be written apart from list items, then there may be a case where they're incorrectly classed, I'll try keep an eye out for that too if there are incorrectly classed articles. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Casey Demons logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Casey Demons logo.png. 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) 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia campaign update

I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.

After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.

Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.

Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].

And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.

Sincerely, Witty lama 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AFL Women's Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AFL Women's Logo.png. 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) 17:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEAFL Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NEAFL Logo.png. 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) 18:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Truscott Medal/Trophy

Hi,

I'm curious as to why the correct changes to the Truscott Medal page have been undone? The award itself is a trophy, not a medal. All MFC publications list it as a 'trophy'. Why is there an insistence on branding the award incorrectly? 155.143.38.49 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 AFL season page

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

The 2017 AFL season page is on my watchlist anyway because I created the page in the first place (any pages I create will always be on my watchlist because I can then track what exactly is happening on them, such as page improvements, expansion etc).

It really is frustrating but there's nothing I (and most likely you and several others) can do about it. From what I think most IP addresses can invade blocks simply by using another computer within their network or by accessing a computer somewhere else. I might be wrong, but that's my gut feeling. MasterMind5991 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@MasterMind5991: Basically yeah, but I think this one just has a re-router that allows any different IP to be used. They've been evading blocks for ages, so unfortunately the only way to deal with it is to just revert. I used to get frustrated by it, but try not to waste too much energy on them now. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Select group of footballers

Hey there – just wanted to discuss a couple of things. I've started to fix up the articles of a select group of footballers that I came up with last night and am going to focus on them over the next few days, but I feel like you're disagreeing with a lot of my edits, so I thought I'd bring them up (just the child sucking up to the more experienced editor). I'm well aware of some of the mistakes that I've made in the past with the infobox in particular, and I've started trying to add the debut parameters as well, but I don't agree one bit with removing the whitespace – it makes it a lot easier for me (as I'm sure it would a lot of others) to edit the infobox properly, as it's a lot tidier, and it's something that I'm very much used to, as the infoboxes of every other page on my watchlist (football-related or not) all have whitespace. One of the big things that I've done is try to get the statistics of each of these players up-to-date, which is coming along well so far. I also haven't ever seen the Brownlow votes box beside the statistics table – I've always ever seen it beside the honours and achievements list. Regarding that, as well, I removed minor awards from the infoboxes of some of these articles, leaving the major ones in the infobox and a complete list in the honours and achievements section, as I feel like condensing to just the major awards will make the infobox have a bigger impact. I also don't see what's necessary about including the image size, as it's not included in the template, and the regular sizes of the images fit well with the infobox. A lot of what you say when arguing these points is "consistency among project" – I really don't think it's that consistent, and I'm trying to lay out each article in this select group of articles that I'm focusing on in the same way (but not too different from what you believe to be "consistent").

I'm also convinced that you're watching my edits, as you went from focusing on what appears to be the full list of footballer articles in alphabetical order to just the ones that I'm editing – I don't know what that's about, but I just thought I'd ask, as I'm not trying to be disruptive. Thanks. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: No worries. I'll go backwards in response, I usually do multiple personal projects at a time on Wikipedia, so the alphabetical pages I was editing was to do with updating the height/weight parameter (I do 200 at a time) and I do a few different things on Wiki in between each time I do the 200 edits (there's no way I can do it all at once as there's ~12,000 to update, sigh). I then later came across the conversation with you and TripleRoryFan and the mini-edit war on a few pages. I just thought I would be a third party for a few of the pages and that's when I came across the white space on multiple infoboxes had been changed. I just went through a few to fix them up per the template module (and that's probably where the edits coincide, but I'm not watching out for your edits, or your future ones, it was just the project I was doing at that point in time.) I know you're not trying to be disruptive, I always assumed WP:good faith (I think the Daisy Pearce one was the only one that coincided in the past few days, and she's on my watchlist so that's how I came across it, then today was due to having TripleRoryFan' talkpage on my watchlist and then it went from there as explained above).

What I've found with Wikipedia is that there are going to be a lot of things that certain people don't agree with and some don't like certain styling patterns but just have to bite the bullet (and I've definitely had those experiences in the past). To be specific with this one, even though you find it easier to edit with the white space, I personally don't (and I can't account for others but have seen others remove white space too). So then when there's this situation, we should go back to the source and in this case all the AFL infoboxes and module are now without whitespace since the club1, years1 etc. conversion; the layout for certain pages shouldn't be changed because one person finds the styling easier to edit that way, it's like how the cricket pages have a certain layout too (personally I struggle to edit those infoboxes and is not what I'm used to, but I don't change them due to consensus). "Consistency among project" is a bit of a canned summary but basically the gist is, this is the consensus within the WikiProject. Normally, I probably wouldn't care about something so minor, but when there was such a change en masse when the infoboxes were converted and the module now reflects that, then the infoboxes should reflect that.

In terms of career highlights, the highlights should nearly always be in the career highlights section and additional can be added to the honours/achievements section if desired, but a long-term consensus is to have it in the infobox (hence the parameter) and if there are additional ones, such as minor club awards and so on then a honours/achievements can be created if need be. I wouldn't just have them in the honours/achievements and not infobox though due to consensus.

As for the image sizes, for a long time for pages in the project, every infobox image I've seen has had an image size which doesn't make the image excessively large. Then when I added the whole heap this year, I kept going with that. I'm not overly fussed with it to be honest, but whenever I make those sort of changes, it's generally what I've seen on a lot of pages in the project and I believe there should be consistency in pages. I know my edits might seem a bit tedious and pointless at times, but it's mainly to keep things consistent across the WikiProject and I think I've come across most of the pages in the project and when I see an abnormaility in infoboxes, I try to restore it to the consensus. I've done this for multiple different personal projects in the past, so please don't think I'm attacking you, it was just what was on my mind at the time and due to the amount of different edits I do, I didn't want to forget to fix it up so I just did it all at once. I hope that answers everything and thanks for adding the debut to infoboxes and updating the stats, that was on my long, long list of things to eventually do, but it's great you're doing it. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing – thanks for clearing some of that up for me. I'll try not to mess with those things when I do get back onto it, however the career highlights and image size might not always be addressed – my main concern is just to get all of them looking similar. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 Apple Event

The credits slide of Apple Keynote online livestream contains this:

rugby image by Wikipedia user Flickerd available under CC-BY-SA

The next sentence is about a Flickr user, I don't know if it is related to you.

Sorry to bother, but perhaps you want to know that your image/photo was used in an Apple Event. Wumbolo (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Oh wow, I'm in a bit of shock about that. Thanks for letting me know, that's awesome. Funny it's the incorrect sport though haha, it's Australian rules football instead of rugby. The Flickr user isn't me, but wow I'm super happy about Apple using one of my photos. Flickerd (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your appearance in the Apple's keynote

Hey, your name just appeared in the Apple's today's keynote. Small print in the last screen. Some Creative Commons stuff they used from you :) https://www.apple.com/apple-events/september-2017/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.96 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@88.115.125.96: Wow, I wasn't aware they used the photo and I don't normally watch Apple events, so thanks for letting me know :) Flickerd (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Spy007au#Non-free rationale for File:NJohnstoneFitz.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Spy007au#Non-free rationale for File:NJohnstoneFitz.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flickerd. The change you made to the licensing of File:NJohnstoneFitz.jpg has a significant impact on how the file can be used on Wikipedia because the file's usage is now subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy for each use. If the change in licensing needed to be made, then so be it; however, if you've changed the licensing of any other files in a similar manner, then there is probably some additional clean up which needs to be done. Each non-free file is required to have a non-free copyright license and each use of a non-free file is required to have a seperate specific non-free use rationale. Both of these things will need to be added to any files whose licensing is changed like you did for the Johnstone file. In addition, certain uses of the file (for example, on user pages, etc.) may no longer be allowed per WP:NFCC#9. Just for reference, non-free files which do not have a copyright tag or a non-free use rationale may be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4 or WP:F6. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks, I'll go through and amend them now (I don't think there's that many, only about 10). I was a bit unsure about whether the rationale needed to be updated as the photos were PD in Australia, but you've given me that clarification. Thanks for that! Flickerd (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Adding NFCRs is the way to go. Sadly although the images are PD in country of origin, as they are not PD in the US they need a NFCR to meet with US copyright law. IMO it is always good to indicate PD status in country of origin even though like here the NFCR is needed. I know some editors argue that if it isn't PD in the US just use an NFCR but I prefer to show that it is PD somewhere if applicable. Nthep (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.11% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for October:

Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries

Continuing from month to month:

#1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrectly licensed GFC photos on Commons

Hey Flickerd, I was wondering if you might be able to help me. I've found some photos on commons that have been licensed as Share Alike 3 but are actually just unattributed copyrighted images from Flickr. This one of Gary Abblett is a good example. It actually comes from This Flickr link which marks it as all rights reserved. I believe this is the case for 3 pictures of Gary Abblett and 2 more of Joel Selwood. You seem to be on top of this sort of stuff usually and I was hoping you'd be able to start proceedings to have them taken down as it's a little outside my abilities. Tigerman2612 (talk) 6:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tigerman2612: Hey, I've had a little bit of a look at the Flickr tags and this is probably the best one to tag the file with [1]. There's a few things that may have happened with the files, 1. When they were uploaded to Commons, the Flickr files were under a free licence and they have since been changed by the Flickr user. Once a file has been uploaded to Commons, the free licence cannot be revoked, so basically it is okay to be on Commons even if the Flickr user changes the terms of the licence, assuming it was a free licence when originally uploaded. I'm not sure if bots have the ability to see past licences on Flickr, but I have seen a few files tagged that way. 2. The Commons uploader is either the Flickr user or had permission to upload the file, but there is no OTRS tag which is needed. 3. It is a copyright violation. For the rest of the images, I'd recommend tagging them with this tag with a link to the original Flickr file. Hope that helps. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flickerd: I've gone ahead and tagged them as such. Thanks for the guidance! :) Tigerman2612 (talk) 8:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Western Bulldogs

I had checked the Western Bulldogs web site and Kent was still listed. Thanks for the update. Donner60 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Donner60: No worries, the club's usually take ages to update the website (sometimes over a month), but thanks for keeping a look out for vandalism :) Flickerd (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jason Ralph

Just a heads-up, in this edit, you probably meant this guy. I went ahead and made the edit for you. Just giving you a heads-up in case there might be similar cases like this. TJRC (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@TJRC: Thanks for the heads up (and thanks for making the subsequent edit fixing it), I'm not really sure how that one slipped through as I was checking all the pages when making the edits, but thanks anyway for fixing it up :) Flickerd (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons deletions

Hi. Hope you're well (personally I'm still not fully recovered from Watts being traded). I noticed that a few footy-related images got deleted at Commons recently and I can't figure out why. Looking into I saw there was a bunch deleted altogether:

All were deleted with the cryptic summary "Careless transfers -". I can see the deleted history on the en.wiki side and they were all transferred by you, but the deletions make no sense to me. They all look PD in Australia or NZ by the URAA date, especially the 19th century football ones. Do you have any idea what's going on? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24, I must concur I'm still not fully recovered from the Watts trade either (the thing that does really miff me is the amount of time I put into his article to get it promoted to good article and now he's a port player... sigh, it'll be interesting to see the how the trade impacts Melbourne though). As for the images, I only realised File:Geelong vs melbourne sketches 1880.jpg was deleted as it was removed from Melbourne Football Club, I didn't know all those files had been deleted. I honestly have no idea why they've been deleted and there doesn't really seem to be any reason why for it, in addition, I was never notified on my commons user talk page, which I'm pretty sure should be done if there's a nomination for deleteion, copyvio etc, so something does seem a bit off. In addition, I don't think there's any copyright violation (especially the 1800 images) as they would all be in the pubic domain. Also, an admin on en.wiki would have okayed the transfer when I added the {{now commons}} to the local file. I'm not really sure where to go from here, but it does seem a bit odd, and I'm pretty sure all images are in the PD due to an expired copyright per the URAA date or the {{PD-US-1923}} rule. I've transferred nearly 500 photos and never had any issues apart from this, so yeah it doesn't seem right... Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Strange. I've left a message at the deleting admin's commons talk page, see commons:User talk:Jcb#Query about a handful of your deletions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If you transfer files to Commons, you are supposed to check the file description pages after transfer and e.g. to fill in the information template correctly. Your transfer batch flooded various problem categories, e.g. Category:Images without source. This way you are causing a lot of unnecessary maintenance work, that's why we disallow such transfers. Please only transfer files to Commons if you are willing to complete the job. We are not willing to spend hours to clean up after your 5 minutes job. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, Okay so let me get this straight, rather than assuming good faith and politely letting me know on my commons talk page that there was an issue which could have very easily been remedied, you went ahead and deleted numerous files without any form of notification? I wasn't aware that there were problems with the transfers and if you had let me know I would have very happily fixed it up and made sure that future transfers were all good too. Perhaps rather than insinuating that someone is being careless and not doing their due dilligence, realise that people aren't always aware of every single facet of Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects. If Jenks24 hadn't notified me about this, then these files would have been lost to both the English Wikipedia and commons, and currently are lost as I don't and don't know anyone who has them saved to reupload. Like I said, I have transferred nearly 500 files and have never had issues (and make sure I'm always careful with categorising and licencing and have always tried to be careful in the transfers) and as I've stated already, this whole thing could have been avoided if you either notified me on my talk page and/or even visited my talk page and realise that no one else had notified me about it, and in doing so assuming good faith and realising I probably was unaware of the issue, or if deleting then notifying on my talk page about the deletions and then the process can be gone through to remedy the issue. Can you please restore the images and I'll fix up the summaries and will do so for future transfers. Flickerd (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the files. You have 48 hours to get them out of the problem categories. Please be aware that such batches without proper care happen so often, that they put a big unnecessary workload on the very small number of users who are working on huge but difficult backlogs like Category:Images without source. Jcb (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least we got the right result in the end and the images haven't been lost. Jenks24 (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Flickerd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Flickerd.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Flickerd.

AfC submissions
Random submission

3+ months

2,918 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: thanks for asking me. At the time I didn't think I would be appropriate as I edit a fairly small area of Wikipedia, but in saying that I probably do have an understanding when it comes to certain sports and bios what's appropriate for passing the Articles for Creation review. I can definitely try and help out, but I'm not sure if it will be a huge amount of help. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)