User talk:Ladida/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Image:207 buried surpriseMOW.jpg 2 Prison Break 3 Prison Break again 4 Images 5 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pb season1 tancredi.jpg) 6 Image:William Fichtner.jpg 7 Nicole Kidman 8 Hey 9 Prison Break Characters 10 Prison Break Episodes 11 Prison Break Template 12 Image:RobertKnepper.jpg 13 Image:AdamGarcia.jpg

Image:207 buried surpriseMOW.jpg

Hi Ladida, I found Image:207 buried surpriseMOW.jpg at http://www.prisonbreak-online.com/ and the copyright is Fox and its related entities. -- Martinw93 11:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Martinw93's talk page. -- Ladida

Prison Break

I'll try and modify the photos like you asked, but I think the new picture for Veronica is better than the old one. I think the old one was unflattering for Robin Tunney and the new one is also a Prison Break promotional shot.--CyberGhostface 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a search for other Veronica photos. I found this one but its rather small, so if you can find the bigger one that'd be fine. However, 90% of the sites I searched had the new image I uploaded, including the official site's photo gallery.--CyberGhostface 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Prison Break again

Since you seem to be one of the main people behind the Prison Break articles, I thought I should give you a heads up on a certain...problem that might plague us over the next couple of days or weeks.

You may or may not have heard of Abu Badali, a user who has added nothing constructive to Wikipedia but instead just trys to remove fair use picture. It seems he is targeting some of the Prison Break character articles. I'll try dealing with it the best I can, but any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.--CyberGhostface 03:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added Fox.com as its source, although the official links to the photos seem to no longer exist. Do you know of any other suitable source?

Thanks for your quick response, btw.--CyberGhostface 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the exact source, although I do know they were promotional photos officially released by Fox. They've appeared in several places now, including TV Guide, Yahoo, IMDB and numerous TV sites.--CyberGhostface 03:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi. I am not sure whether you can help me with this but your help would be appreciated. This is about your recent edits to the promotional images of Prison Break characters. Given the source is provided for a known promotional image, is it not sufficient that a fair use rationale is also provided since the terms of use says that you can "download material from this Site for your own use and you must keep all copyright and other proprietary notices attached to the downloaded material". I know it does say "the reproduction, duplication, distribution (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), publication, modification, copying or transmission of material from this Site is strictly prohibited unless you have obtained the prior written consent of FOX" but the utilisation of the image in Wikipedia isn't really any of those things. This also concerns images downloaded from Yahoo!. Doesn't a fair use rationale provide an explanation that this is not for commercial use? If it is prohibited, does this mean we have to remove all the images downloaded from these sites, because that's a lot of images since all television network sites has similar terms of use (like FOX, CBS and ABC)? I am asking you this because a lot of images from TV show articles are downloaded from these sites. Also, is this copyright issue covered in Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images doesn't really say anything specific. Thank you, Ladida 08:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ladida. The problem in this cases is the misuse of the {{promotional}}, {{promo}}, {{publicity}}, and related tags. These tags are intended for material coming from a press kit or similar source. Images used in tv-series websites are not necessarly intended to be widely used by the media. The company producing the tv-series may want to have some exclusive pictures for it's official website or to have some other kind of strict control over how it's material are used. That's why we need to read the Terms of Use from such websites to be sure the images are for widespread media use.

Images found on fansites or blogs sould never be used in these cases, as these sites are either resusers (and not a source) of promotional material or simply copyright violators.

As a more safe strategy, I would suggest using (a limited number of) screenshots to illustrated tv-series characters. For such images, provide as "source information" the tv-series name, the chapter the screenshot was taken from, the company producing the series, etc. This is a fully verifiable source information for the image.

For the specific case of the recent "Prision Break" images I have tagged, they do not contain verifiable source information. The only info available is that they come from fox.com and are promotional material. Neither can I find the images on fox.com nor have I any reason to believe images from that site are promotional.

And the use of this images on Wikipedia is all of reproduction, duplication, distribution, publication, and transmission. So, it's not ok for us to use such images as promotional material.

The point is that these images are part of those website contens. They are part of the value of the websites. Those websites are not simply a vehicle for the company advertising the tv-series. They are a product themselves. And our use of parts of it degrades the value of them as a product.

Let me know if I can still be of any help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So should we remove those images or leave them? The other thing is they are used everywhere or I've come across many of them during my perusal of television show articles. Anyway, thanks again for your explanation. :) Ladida 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I would say it would be wise to remove all images mistakenly tagged as promotional you find. Tag them as {{imagevio}} (and follow the instructions at the top of this tag to list the image at WP:CP) For the image you have uploaded yourself, tag them with {{db-author}}, and they will be eventually removed.

If you feel some tv-series character deserves being pictured, consider adding one screenshot showing him/her to the article. Search Wikipedia for an existing screenshot before uploading a new one. At the screenshot page, add as much source information as you can (the series name, episode number, airing date, the company producing the series, etc). I know this is not a common pratice for screenshots here, but it's a problem that we will eventually have to deal with.

Drop me a note whenever you think I can be of any help! Best regards, --Abu Badali 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pb season1 tancredi.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pb season1 tancredi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ReyBrujo 03:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied to User_talk:ReyBrujo. -- Ladida 06:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Your explanation for requesting a speedy deletion is that it is orphaned and terms of use violation However, you did not explain why it is a terms of use violation, and orphaned fair use images can be speedied after a week, not immediately. If you want to delete it because it is orphaned, you need to use {{orfud}}. Otherwise, check here to see if any of the speedy criteria applies for the image. The safest way is just orphan it and tag it as orphaned. Hope that clears it out. -- ReyBrujo 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:William Fichtner.jpg

I'm curious as to why you attached a speedy tag to this with the reason copyright violation, no original source. It has a perfectly valid fair use assertion and it includes a link to its source. Grandmasterka 08:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use is the guide to using copyrighted pictures in articles. Otherwise, I think the image tags themsleves are very descriptive at spelling out the information that needs to be provided. (It's fair to assume this image is a promotional photo since it's being used on Yahoo, I think.) I have to go and I probably won't be on here for a couple days. You could chat with more image-centered users if you need further advice, such as User:Carnildo. Grandmasterka 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

Nice work cleaning up Kidman's article --Steve 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Havent seen you on messenger in several weeks, having any problems? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Prison Break Characters

I wanted to discuss some of the changes made to the various Prison Break articles of late. It's good that someone is providing some regular maintenance, but I think some of removal of articles were unnecessary, though I agree that some were justified. I'll list some of the ones I think apply to either category:

Ones I think should have an article:

• Roy Geary: Had he only appeared in Season 1, I might have agreed with keeping it with nothing, but since he's appeared regularly this season as Bellick's right-hand man on top of his role last season, I think he warrants his own article.
• Nick Savrinn: He appeared in nearly every episode in season 1 and played a fairly prominent role in uncovering the conspiracy before being killed off. If Westmoreland's season long stint warrants an article, so does Nick's.
• Daniel Hale: He was a major character in the first half of season 1 (which was almost a distinct season in itself from the second half) and had a clear character arc.
• Samantha Brinker: She was featured as prominently in the second half of season 1 as Hale did in the first. She also represents "the Company" and may yet return.
• Manche Sanchez: He played a large role in the second half as well

Ones I agree don't need an article:

• Debra Jean Belle: She appeared in, what, three episodes? Since she really only interacted with Tweener, who is now dead, I agree an article is unecessary.
• Quinn: He appeared in only two episodes (three if you count the body glimpsed in a later episode).
• Philly Falzone: Appeared only briefly early in season 1 and is unlikely to ever be seen again.
• Robert Hudson: Appeared in only two episodes (two halves of a two-part episode at that) before being killed off.

Nika Volek and William Kim I'm somewhat on the fence about. Either may yet return (the latter seems more likely). I'm just not sure.

I'd like to hear back from you on some of this and get your thoughts. For now, I'll just restore Geary and Nick because I think the reasons are most evident. Thank you.--T smitts 06:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Prison Break Episodes

Why have you reverted the wiki page to not include the summaries, these have been sourced from the FOX website, please explain why you have done it?

82.32.9.6 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you plagarised from that site. Secondly, they say it's from Fox but the link provided goes to Fox's official page and not the press release page. Even if those statements were credible, they are not well sourced. Links to media and press releases are more reliable and should be used as your source instead of spoilers sites. Regards, Ladida 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Prison Break Template

I wanted to talk to you about restoring the recurring characters back to the template. It seems to me that the point of a template is to allow visitors to have easy access to other related articles. I'd also like to point out that templates for other shows (such as 24 and The West Wing) do include recurring characters. I also think distinguishing the members of "the Fox River Eight" as such on the template might be useful as well. If I were looking up info on the characters of Prison Break to learn more about the show, I think I'd want to know who the fugitives were.--T smitts 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to the concern that the template was constantly being fiddled with, that wiki articles are quite mercurial things and that they're changed frequently. There will always be someone messing with something and there will always be someone to make it right. I honestly think the template can handle the return of some recurring characters, some of whom play (or played) an integral role on the show (speaking of which, since Michael and Lincoln's father Aldo Burrows will be coming back soon, I think he'll warrant an article soon.) If you are worried about size, I think some of the name's can be cut down, listing the fugitives on the template by their prison names (Except for Michael and Lincoln, who were rarely referred to by their nicknames and Abruzzi and Sucre, who never had nicknames).

I'd also point out that while, yes, each show or movie's template is different, I think most of them do group characters together by their role on the show. As I said, the West Wing and 24 do this. Law & Order does this as well. I would probably agree that a "Fox River Eight" section in the main article was a bit too in-show but I don't think it is to identify characters as such in the template.

In resonse to "I would like to say that if that person was watching the show, they would know about them.", as I said, that assumes the person reading the article IS familiar to the show and has seen enough to know character's names and who they are.--T smitts 09:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"unless you mean linking all the recurring characters that have their own articles." I did. --T smitts 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RobertKnepper.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RobertKnepper.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:AdamGarcia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AdamGarcia.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Rossrs 07:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)