Talk:List of cultural icons of Italy

Image copyright problem with Image:Venice Film Festival Logo.gif

The image Image:Venice Film Festival Logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Amore - Andrea Bocelli FRONT.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC) bmjhkh poo and the mayor of funky town hi guys what'sb\ in the haps

Verification of national icon status

A series of articles List of cultural icons of Fooland, including this, was suggested for deletion in July 2014. Nobody argued that unverified entries should be retained, nor did anyone challenge the assertion that items should only be included if they are verified. I have applied those principles, those who think that verification is possible having had nearly a year and a half to do so. In doing so, I have made an assumption of good faith where a reference has been given, without checking that actual verification that the person/place/thing is present. Kevin McE (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I agree that the most verification should be inserted where possible, but how you removed classic icons like spaghetti, pizza, Ferrari, etc., those are pretty much self proclaimed in the sense they are so common and well known, they don't necessarily need a source. Not every single line of an article is sourced. Sometimes it is simply not necessary. But I agree that many others do need them. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is so obvious that they are icons, then they will easily be found on a list of such published in a reliable source. Of course one source could cover many items on such a list. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: And so which is why they should not be removed all together. Having a "needs more verification and sources - you can help" sign at the top of the article like it already does is good enough. Editors will add sources slowly one by one. This doesn't mean they should all be taken down. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Since January 2014, one item on the list that was previously unsourced has had a reference added. Considering the number of unreferenced claims, your trust in the willingness or ability of editors to "add sources slowly one by one" seems ill founded. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: Yes, it's true that sadly the process takes much too long. But that is how it is... Many articles have these titles at the top of their respective article, but little is ever done... It doesn't mean we can just remove tons of the article like that though. If you feel strongly about the matter and you say the sources are easily found, maybe you could help to keep this article up to date and get it back to a good form? I'm not asking you to fill in references for everything, but instead of just reverting everything, maybe help to find sources faster than "one by one". Thanks for your cooperation and help. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that they should be included can find the source. Until someone does, why should they not be deleted? They should be removed, then can be added "slowly one by one" when it is known that they belong. The alternative is to leave things that are wrongly included on the grounds of the remote possibility that they might be verified on some future date. That is not how to make a reliable encyclopaedia. Gaps are preferable to errors: unsupported opinion is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is true that we should add sources, but in this case I think is about " faith", I have saw all the list and I see that the list is correct.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of cultural icons of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109232456/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/music/artist/9n54/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/9n54/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of cultural icons of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080718041344/http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/story/history_text.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/story/history_text.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070611184542/http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/wq8c/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/wq8c/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)