User talk:Bkell/September 2008 through December 2009

Links in section headings on talk pages

Re this edit you made to {{Db-notice}}. WP:MOS says nothing about links in section titles on talk pages, only in articles. Having the link in the section heading for that template is very useful so I am going to revert your edit. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, you may be technically correct, but the justification given for the recommendation against links in section headings is that they may cause accessibility problems for people who use screen readers. I can't imagine any reason that these accessibility problems would be limited to articles and not talk pages. The link to the article is in the template text itself, so why is it important to have it in the section title too? —Bkell (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For your review

From your MfD posts, for your review, here, here, here, here. -- Suntag ☼ 05:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Live Search New.png

Hello.
I've updated what can ostensibly be called a reduced-resolution image. After some hesitation, I decided to replace the __non-free reduce__ tag with the __non-free reduced__ tag. While there's another cosmetic mistake I overlooked, I decided that I could live with it.

The directly previous version of the image has a much smaller height, but it sacrifices some of the page elements. If this one is better, it could be used instead of the current one.

I do think that versions previous to and including 3. october 2008, 11:37 (EET) should be deleted, though.

Please reply at my talk, if you care to, as I don't follow other editors' talk pages. I'd appreciate your input.
-Mardus (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. —Bkell (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lisco, Nebraska

Do you remember a problem some time back with the community of Lisco in western Garden County, which the Census called Cisco? Andrewa has found a document that resolves the question entirely. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad that's resolved. I suspected it was an error. —Bkell (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sinatra

Why delete? Pepso2 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 May 14#Image:Fsinatra1.jpg and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. —Bkell (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User page and images

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jacksterlinghowlett. My curiosity got the better of me and I followed the links on the user page. Unfortunately, it took me to a MySpace memorial page, so I decided to WP:IAR and delete the user page and images. Not quite sure if that was the right thing to do, so will ask at WP:AN. Just wanted to let you know as well. The paintings were abstract impressionist stuff, as you said, no encyclopedic use, so they would probably have gone anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I took some advice and decided not to go to WP:AN. I did do a summary here. If you want to blank the recent IfD discussions, please do. There was also an IfD discussion over a year ago. I'd suggest keeping the MfD discussion there, as most of the deletion summaries point there. I'm not going to do anything more though, unless someone else raises the matter again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Integral expression"

I'm not ready to opine on whether that article should be deleted. But what I can say about "what is integral" about polynomials is that they form a Euclidean ring. That's not so mysterious. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a good point. That is true. —Bkell (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Gulf.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Gulf.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree. —Bkell (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete request

Hey, I've got a question and hope you can help. I need to delete the 2nd revision of [1] because it's a copyvio (bad printscreen on my part). Is this possible? CecilPL (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. —Bkell (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image source problem with Image:Dan whitesf.jpg

I forgot where the image came from but I am pretty sure it was public domain. Maybe a smaller size image can replace it but pictures are hard to find since the guy is dead.--Cs california (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that pictures are difficult to find. But by Wikipedia policies we must give the source of all the images we use, so that the copyright status can be verified. For example, I am skeptical of your claim that Image:Dan whitesf.jpg is in the public domain, because I don't see any evidence to support this claim. Providing a source for the image would go a long way toward establishing a justification for your public domain claim. If we cannot get a source for the image, unfortunately it will have to be deleted, because Wikipedia can't just take your word that it's in the public domain; such a claim needs to be verifiable by others. —Bkell (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

About my STAAU page

Why did you delete it? it was a perfectly good page. Im telling you. Me AND my page are gonna get known just as well as any other page. I looked at the page that said: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things you or your friends created one day. Well maybe if youd give it a chance more people would know about it, then it should be on Wikipedia. PLZ respond FAST.

--Tiger808 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Tiger808

Okay, well, if your organization does become widely known as you say, so that it meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and garners significant coverage in reliable third-party sources such as major newspapers, magazines, or published books, so that the information about your organization is verifiable, then certainly it is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about your organization. However, until that time, STAAU does not appear to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am not doubting your claim that STAAU will become widely known someday, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot have articles which are based on speculation. Let me know if you need help or have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

PLZ!! I mean, until that day, nobody is REALLY gonna look at it. And how can it get famouse unless someone sees it, or hears about it? Its not really gonna affect Wikipedia, you, me, or anyone. Its just something i really want to start. And if someone looks at it, cool for me! But if they dont, fine with me. Its not gonna do ANY harm! PLZ! (and if you STILL say no, thgen TELL ME, BEFORE you delete it.) --Tiger808 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Tiger808

Wikipedia is not meant to be a way to become well-known—Wikipedia is a collection of information about topics that are already well-known. Wikipedia is not a blog or webspace provider. If you are looking for an online page about your organization, you should try MySpace or another free Web hosting service.

I personally will not speedily delete the STAAU article again, but if I run across the article again I will list it for deletion. This will allow you a place to publicly voice your opinions. However, I stand by my belief that STAAU, at this point in time, simply does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Once again, I will refer you to the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

• Verifiability
• Notability
• What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Again, please let me know if I can help you or if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevanna jackson

Nothing has been concluded by the articles of inclusion, I deleted it myself last night ... yes it was nominated for deletion, but I deleted it so I can do it correctly at a later time. I dont want to be rude but; is this wikipedia or wackypedia? I know you have edited 100 zillion articles, but you are not infallible, as you too are only Human ... its a little sad to see how a lot of editors/admins are a little wickedly wacky ... too caught up in wikiworld ... Well then I declare a wikiwar ... Notability is there and it is verifiable and so are the rest of the guidelines of the Stevanna Jackson wikipage. So please stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasia 15 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jagat Seth

Thanks for reminding about citation. I shall try to put in some references. ManasShaikh (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I put in some references. Those are Indian government sites, so quite reliable. Please remove the unsourced tag if you think it appropriate. ManasShaikh (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Some seven articles link to Jagat Seth. Is that enough to un-orphan it? I think all heads counted, it should go up to about 15. Not much more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasShaikh (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. —Bkell (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use Image:Continuous Casting Machine.png

Bugger!

Bkell, I fully understand your reasons for removing this image. Unfortunately, free, good and explanatory images of these machines (and nearly anything else to do with steelmaking) are nearly impossible to find without a Wikipedian creating it from scratch and releasing it, and there's a lot of hassle where that's involved.

I can do good technical drawings, they just take time that I don't have at the moment. I dunno, would you be able to ask around your fellow students to see if anybody knows what a CCM (and an EAF) look like, and be able to do a decent drawing of one? Thanks, Sentinel75 (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a math student, and unfortunately I don't know many students who would be familiar with continuous casting machines or electric arc furnaces. You might want to take a look at Template:Reqdiagram, which is used to request a diagram for a Wikipedia article. —Bkell (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge independent set and independent set problem?

You opposed a merger from Independent set to Independent set problem. I agree. Now I want to merge the two pages in the other direction. Please comment at Talk:Independent set#Merger proposal. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

About Hades Deletion

Your message: "I don't understand what this article is talking about. It seems to be something written in an in-universe style, but there doesn't seem to be any context. —Bkell (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"

---

My point: This article is detailing the character of Hades Alone and simplifiying the Saint Seiya Lost Canvas character section. I added a Trivia part which you are intending to delete as well.

I did the same a bit ago with Pegasus Tenma's Section and nobody complained.

Sorondil (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give your explanations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hades Alone rather than on my personal talk page. They will be much more visible to other editors there. —Bkell (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia articles. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Alleyway-balls.PNG

I've left a dispute to the non-free violation claim here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to undelete page

Hello,

We created a page for Ziibii and I'd like to request that the page be undeleted. We can update the information so that it is not blatant marketing, but actually provide helpful information. Please let me know. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRC250 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have the entirety of the deleted content of the Ziibii article duplicated on your talk page, so there's no reason for me to undelete the article. If you feel that you can rewrite the article so that it establishes notability through references to reliable, third-party published sources and does not read like promotional material, you can just recreate the article yourself. Let me know if you need help or have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Small shelly fauna

Your claim that the lead image of Small shelly fauna, which you deleted, is a "blatant copyvio" of Valentine's book. Your claim makes the unwarranted assumptions that the image shown on the book's from cover is within copyright and that the publishers of the book own the copyright. I suggest you undelete it and then, if you are concerned, check the facts. Do not suggest that I should prove the image ahown in Small shelly fauna is not a subject in ay way to copyright, as that would be a demand that I prove a negative, which is impossible. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you tagged it as being your own creation, which is certainly false, isn't it? Since that wasn't true, and since the previous (identical) version of this image had been tagged by Smith609 as coming from Valentine's book, and since I checked and this image definitely appears in Valentine's book, which is certainly still under copyright (having been published in 2004), and since (I think) Valentine does not give credit to someone else for the image, it seems like a very reasonable assumption that the image was created by Valentine (or by an illustrator for Valentine's book). If this is not the case, then unfortunately I do have to ask you to establish that the image is for some reason in the public domain, because under current U.S. copyright law all creative works are presumed to be under copyright restrictions unless there is some reason otherwise. I agree that this system seems backward, but that's the way it is. So, if you can show that this image was first published in the United States before 1923, for example, then you will have established that it is indeed in the public domain. Otherwise we must assume that it is under copyright restrictions. —Bkell (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about one thing: Valentine does say, at the end of the caption next to the image on page 181, "After Rozanov and Zhuravlev 1992." This seems to imply that this particular image was created by Valentine (or an illustrator working for Valentine), and so is under copyright for that reason, but additionally that it is based on a similar image created by Rozanov and Zhuravlev in 1992, which is still far too recent to have lapsed into the public domain. So, if anything, this attribution strengthens the evidence in favor of the hypothesis that this image is copyrighted. —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"assumption" (Bkell 16:12, 11 April 2009)? "seems to imply" (id, 16:16, 11 April 2009)? "this image definitely appears in Valentine's book"? Start at Palaeos and work your way from there. --Philcha (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I do not have a signed, notarized document that clearly states that this image is copyrighted. But I am not making baseless assumptions here. I have presented a fair amount of evidence that shows that this image was published in a very recent book and that it is a derivative work of an image published in 1992. All of this leads to the conclusion that the image is copyrighted. You are claiming that it is in the public domain, but you have offered no evidence to support this claim. Unfortunately that's not the way to do it—creative works are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is evidence otherwise. (This is not just Wikipedia policy; this is United States law, and United Kingdom law too, I believe.) I don't know what I'm supposed to do with Palaeos; can you be more specific? —Bkell (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where I'd find how widely an image is used? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How widely the image is used has nothing to do with it. The copyright status depends mostly on where and when it was first published. —Bkell (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Widely w/o attribution, incl by people who are not careless about copyright. Suggests 2 things: they prolly think it's PD; it will be hard to track down. I'm not making the effort, as lead imgs are just eye-candy. --Philcha (talk)

Deleted images

Hello. On April 5, you deleted two images I'd uploaded: File:Nyandoro.PNG and File:Rohani.jpg. Your stated rationale was: "F7: Violates non-free use policy: clearly invalid fair-use tag: this is not a screenshot of a Web page". You failed to notify me before deleting the images. Had you bothered to do so, I would have asked you how I could correctly formulate the tag, and the matter could have been resolved. I hope you've kept a copy of the images. I would ask you to be so kind as to explain to me what the correct formulation of the tag would have been. That done, you can restore the images from your saved copies, and I'll correctly formulate the tags. Unless there is no correct formulation, and no way to validate a fair use tag, in which case I'd also appreciate knowing it. Thank you in advance. Aridd (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored these images for now. I did not notice at the time that you had written fair-use rationales in the "Permission" sections of the information boxes. I have removed the {{Non-free web screenshot}} tags from these images, since they are not screenshots of Web pages, and replaced them with the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag. I am going to list these images at Wikipedia:Files for deletion, however, because I do not agree that the use of these images meets all of the non-free content criteria. You are welcome to contribute to the FFD discussion, once I have completed the listings. I'll leave a note on your talk page about it. Let me know if you have any other questions. —Bkell (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Aridd (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian A. Vaughan

you deleted an article that was a direct link from a current election candidate list. This was posted because your search system wrongly redirected viewers to a candidate with the same name in another province from another party. You continue this and I'll file a written complaint with Elections BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haneyguy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I deleted Ian A.Vaughan was because the article did not indicate why the subject was important or significant. Please see criterion A7 for speedy deletion. If Mr. Vaughan meets the notability guidelines for biographies set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people), then feel free to recreate the article, being sure to specifically indicate why he is notable. There is no need to make threats; please try to remain civil. Let me know if you need help or have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't making a threat, but was pointing out BC law requirements. By falsely linking to a candidate from another party in a different province a violation of BC election law occurs. I was attempting to correct the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haneyguy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that my actions are in no way motivated by political considerations. I live in Nebraska and have no involvement in British Columbian elections. I treated Ian A.Vaughan the same way as I would treat any other article that fails to establish the notability of its subject. Mr. Vaughan's name appears in the Maple Ridge-Mission article as a candidate for an upcoming election, but simply being a candidate for an election is unlikely to make a person notable. You will notice, for example, that most of the candidates of previous elections in Maple Ridge-Mission do not have Wikipedia articles. If Mr. Vaughan is notable independently of his candidacy, then this should be explained in his article; otherwise, he probably does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. —Bkell (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article recreated with a space. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tribune/Greeley County

Do you know where we might get sources for the new government? Some time ago, I looked for sources, but I couldn't really find much of anything; even emailing the city/county clerk produced no results. You're in Kansas; do you have access to any local sources? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, and actually I'm in Nebraska, not Kansas. ;-) If I get some time in the next couple of days I'll see if I can dig something up. —Bkell (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Liubov Popova image deleted

I'd like some help with getting some images onto this painter's article; so far I have had them deleted although when loading them I have put a tag to indicate they were made before 1923. Popova is a Russian abstract painter who died in 1924 so I would have thought most of the work was ok to put on Wikipedia, the copyright having expired. Is this so? Also the article needs a photo of the artist. Do the same copyright rules apply? Thanks.Paula Clare (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A very good thing to do is to include an {{Information}} tag on the image description page. Do this by copying the following:

{{Information
| Description = 
| Source = 
| Date = 
| Author = 
| Permission = 
| other_versions = 
}}

Be sure to fill in the fields as completely as you can. The "other_versions" line is optional; leave it off if it doesn't apply. An information tag will help other Wikipedia editors if there is a problem with licensing issues.

Under United States copyright law, all works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain and free of copyright. This does not necessarily apply to works published in Russia before 1923. The {{PD-US}} tag is appropriate to use for works that were published in the United States before 1923. The {{PD-old-70}} tag is appropriate to use for works by an author (artist, photographer, etc.) who died more than 70 years ago, though this rule is not necessarily applicable under United States law.

Really the answers to your questions depend on the particular image under consideration, so we need to look at things on a case-by-case basis. If you need help with a particular image or have other questions, please let me know. You might also try the media copyright questions page. —Bkell (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Octahedral cmpds

Most or at least near majority of compounds outside of organic chemistry are octahedral. So I wonder if you really think that this description is useful? Surely your intentions are good, but are you very familiar with inorganic chemistry?--Smokefoot (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'll stop. I guess I saw these as relatively uncommon, but that's because I was thinking about organic compounds. On the other hand, I was looking for a list of such compounds just a little bit ago, and I didn't easily find such a list; trying to guess compounds led me to a few, but there didn't seem to be a vast number of them. This is probably just due to my ignorance, though. —Bkell (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We all have lots of starts and stops in this business, and one can absorb a lot in that way. Octahedral molecules and ions are incredibly common starting with good old NaCl and including lots of more complicated things that are not strictly octahedral but are called such. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Octahedral compounds. If it isn't worth it to have such a category, then it should probably be listed for deletion. —Bkell (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Letting Know About My Re-edit

I changed the sense of the introduction a bit, so that it would be clear that mathematicians haven't weighed in on this very much. You may want to remove your citation request (sentence is different), or else you may want to undo or re-write yourself. It's going to remain an article, but getting the introduction just right seems like the best way to get across any objectionable nature there may be to there being such an article.Julzes (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By "weighed in very much" I mean put out a standard.Julzes (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to leave the tag there. The statement "the number of symbols used and the precision of approximate equality might be the most obvious way to assess mathematical coincidences" seems to be an instance of weasel words; we should find a third-party source to attribute this opinion to. The same goes for the implicit claim that the strong law of small numbers is simply a convenient fallback that mathematicians use when they can't find a mathematical explanation. —Bkell (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, and see the current remarks at talk:mathematical coincidences.Julzes (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite mean to make that claim. The "law" we are talking about is not a mathematical theorem but is supported by lists in the same way the notion that there is meaning might be.Julzes (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks....

For your help with mole (animal) Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Benelli Tre 1130 K.jpg

Can you explain why File:Benelli Tre 1130 K.jpg is second time nominated for deletion and File:Versys 2008.jpg from wich I copied license tags none? --UrSuS (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Versys_2008.jpg

Please read the first non-free content criterion, which states:

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

The reason this is part of Wikipedia policy is that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. File:Benelli Tre 1130 K.jpg is a copyrighted photograph, and it not been released under a free license. Anyone who has a Benelli Tre 1130 K motorcycle could take a photograph, license it under a free license, and upload it to Wikipedia (or better, the Wikimedia Commons). Therefore, this photograph could be replaced by a free equivalent, so it does not meet the requirements for non-free content on Wikipedia.

As for the second part of your question, File:Versys 2008.jpg also fails to meet the non-free content criteria for exactly the same reason, and I have now tagged it accordingly. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Please let me know if you have more questions. —Bkell (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Jibrin-Roman ruins-Illayan

Greetings Bkell. I have the email link here [2], but I'm still not sure if you can read it or not. Anyway, when I open up the Commons permission email link, what do I do with the above link? Where do I paste it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your links don't work because they point into your Yahoo mailbox, and I can't read messages in your mailbox (you are the only one who can do that). What you should do is forward that e-mail message to the following address:

• permissions-en@wikimedia.org

Be sure to include these URLs so that it's clear what the e-mail is referring to:

• http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Hebron/Bayt-Jibrin/Picture8036.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jibrin-Roman_ruins-Illayan.JPG

If you can, you should also include the original request e-mail you sent to Umar Illyan.

After you've done this, let me know. Once the e-mail has been forwarded to <permissions-en@wikimedia.org>, the tag {{OTRS pending}} should be placed on the image description page. Please let me know if I can be of any more help. —Bkell (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bse sci lib com.jpg, File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg, File:Eisenach.jpg

File:Bse sci lib com.jpg: Re your question on my talk page about this file: here is the copyright page in question. Sorry, I had thought I had put a link to the page on the file - my omission.
Translation: I'm now puzzled as when I uploaded the file, the wording on that page was much clearer, mentioning images as such. However I don't speak Russian or Japanese, and at all times have to rely on Google Translate alone. This often comes out as gobbledygook, especially when it struggles with Japanese. It also seems to be inconsistent each time you use it to translate the same page. I do my best to check, but it needs someone to translate it properly from the Russian, in my opinion.
Pre-1951/53 Soviet photos: However, at the time of uploading I had been reassured that Soviet photos taken before 1953 were copyright-free (and before 1951 for the military), because during the Cold War the US legal dept decided that Soviet copyright was fair game (so I was told). The uniform indicates pre-1951, so I thought it was OK.
No alternative images in English-speaking domain: There was also the consideration that when I uploaded the image there was no online material whatsoever in the English language on this superb tenor, who deserved worldwide recognition and was notable as one of the first recorded celebrated singers of Kalinka. Since 1963 many people in the West have owned recordings of this artist, but until I created the article Evgeny Belyaev they were not able to put a face to the recording, and knew absolutely nothing about him, except for his name and some praise in a couple of 1960s newspaper articles. So at the time of uploading I believed there was a case for using this photo, in the absence of other information.
The Evgeny Belyaev page is unique in the English language: All the information in my articles on the Alexandrov Ensemble and the associated pages have been gleaned from foreign language internet sources, using Google Translate alone - no-one else had bothered to do it - and now we all have that information to hand when before there was absolutely nothing in English. I hope you will kindly treat this work accordingly, bearing in mind that anything deleted is irreplaceable, and there is no alternative source in English (unless someone else has already copied the pages that I created).

• Update: On the image filepage, I have now added the required link to the source permission page, and I have deleted the tag as its wording requires. However if you still have a problem, please let me know.--Storye book (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg:
Translation: This one is from a Japanese website, and as I said above, I had great difficulty understanding the translated gobbledygook. Again it needs a proper Japanese translator. As far as I know, there is no other source on English internet pages for information or images of this artist. My computer has now developed a translation loop for this Japanese website, whereby if I feed its url into the Google Translate system, my screen fills up with Google Translate's attempts to translate its translations ad inf. I can just about translate bits and pieces at a time by feeding odd phrases and paragraphs into Google Translate, but not whole pages. Therefore it is impossible to navigate around Japanese pages, so I'm stymied on this one. If you know any willing Japanese translators, that would be very helpful.

File:Eisenach.jpg:
Pre-1953 Soviet photos, inadequate alternatives and notability: Arthur Eisen is a similar problem, and maybe an even bigger case of notability. The above two singers Belyaev and Abramov were only ever soloists for the Alexandrov Ensemble, however fine singers they may have been. But Eisen was a full-blown opera singer; a superb Russian basso. However his prime was during the Cold War, and the West missed most of his performances, he was never really known worldwide, and that was our loss. Again, this is a pre-1953 photo, and at the time of uploading I understood that that meant it was free of copyright. I also understood that where there were no adequate alternative images, then an old photo like this was permissible. There is a copyright notice at the bottom of the source page, but due to the above information, I understood that the copyright notice applied to the text, or to the whole website as such, but not to individual very old images like this one.

• Update: On the image filepage, I have provided a link to the source permission page, as required. I have also corrected the date 1950 (my error) to 1952, and provided an explanation on the comments page.--Storye book (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have any further problem with my images, please let me know on my talkpage. --Storye book (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response, and thank you for all the work you've done. I am not attacking these images or the article at all—I'm just trying to clear up the copyright situation for these images, which is fairly murky. My suspicions were raised for these three images because their image description pages claim that they have been released under a Creative Commons license. Certainly the Soviets didn't release them under that license—Creative Commons didn't exist during the Soviet era. So who did put them under a Creative Commons license, I wondered? The source pages don't seem to mention the Creative Commons. Only the copyright holder has the right to license a work, so the Creative Commons claims seem doubtful to me. (You, as the uploader, can't just decide yourself to put them under a Creative Commons license, unless you are the copyright holder.) If the images have fallen out of copyright, then they are in the public domain, not under a Creative Commons license, and should be tagged accordingly. But I don't know enough about Soviet or Russian copyright laws, or the interaction between these laws and United States copyright law, to know what to do with these, and there didn't seem to be enough information on the source pages to clear things up. That's the reason I tagged these images as I did.

Many other images in Alexandrov Ensemble soloists seem to be in a similar situation, but I thought I'd start with a few and see if we can clear those up before tackling the rest. I think the source for File:Bse sci lib com.jpg has been cleared up, though I still think the Creative Commons tag is inappropriate unless you can find some evidence that the copyright holder (whoever that is—you'll have to find out) has released the image under such a license. If there is no copyright holder (if the image is in the public domain), then the image should have an appropriate public domain tag. (We're going to have to have more concrete evidence about the date of the photo than "dated fashion," though.) We still need more information about File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg. Hopefully the PUI listing for File:Eisenach.jpg will get us some answers from someone who understands Soviet copyright law a little better than I do.

By the way, it is better to link directly to the source pages in their original language rather than linking to the pages through some translation service. It makes the URLs shorter, it doesn't tie the availability of the source to the availability of the translation service (as you've noticed, Google Translate seems to be having some problems with Japanese at the moment), the text produced by automatic translation services is often a garbled mess, and if someone can't read the original language he can always run it through a translation service himself.

Thanks again for being so helpful in this. Again, I want to stress that I am in no way doubting the notability or accomplishments of these people. I am just trying to sort out the copyright situation with these images. Let me know if you need anything or if I can help. At the moment I think you are going to be better able to provide information about these photos than I am, unfortunately. Keep following Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 5#File:Eisenach.jpg to help answer questions that might come up, and see if you can find more information about File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg. Babel Fish is another translation service you might try; I don't know if it's better or worse than Google Translate, but at least it doesn't get stuck in a loop on http://www.katch.ne.jp/~alexandrov/solo/abramov.html. —Bkell (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi and thanks for your long and helpful reply. Unfortunately, although I can spare odd moments through the day at the moment, I can't do spells of long and difficult research in foreign languages that I don't know, as I'm examining 2 x GCSE subjects at the moment, and I have piles of scripts up to here and am already behind schedule. I'll do my best to keep up with answering questions, but new research, as you know, needs long and continuous work-periods because you have to keep so much in your head and so many pages open onscreen and so on, and I won't be able to do that properly until mid-July, now (apart from the odd bit of English museum stuff, which de-stresses me after examining). The exam candidates have to come first. If the Russian images get lost through my neglect in not being able to fight their corner for them, then I'm afraid they'll be lost. A pity, because the memories of these Russian people deserve better than that after so many years of obscurity. Thanks for your kind help - if you have your eye on other images, I'd be most grateful if you'd kindly hold off until mid-July when I can do full serious research and give you full answers on whatever you need. Hope that's OK and thanks again. I have stolen hours on sorting this question out, and must now mark through the night to make up for it. --Storye book (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely understand. Even if the images are deleted, they aren't lost—nothing* is ever deleted permanently from Wikipedia, so they can be restored later if more information becomes available. If that happens, just let me know and I'll be happy to undelete them for you. —Bkell (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• HiBkell - thx for support and help - appreciate it. Am nevertheless upset about this so am doing my best - have adjusted licences on File:Bse sci lib com.jpg best I can - may have over-egged it a bit - you're welcome to remove anything excessive of course. Will try and do the Arthur Eisen page now, as I now can't work for worrying about it. Will have to give up on the Abramov image page until July though.--Storye book (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Update: Have now done the Arthur Eisen image File:Eisenach.jpg - removed old licence and substituted new one to go with my new addition to the description on that page. Please kindly check it and see if the deletion tag can now be removed. Thanks. Can't do any more tonight - must carry on marking and must get up at 5am. --Storye book (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for your work. I'm sorry for this—I didn't mean to make you unable to work on more important things. My suggestion for you, if you're still upset about this, is to go get some exercise, eat a meal, watch a movie, or do something else to clear your mind. It's very easy to get caught up emotionally in things that are happening at Wikipedia—it's happened to me countless times—and it does make it very difficult to focus on the other things that need to be done. After I step away for a bit and calm down, though, I can usually realize that it's not actually a big deal, and I can push it aside to focus on other work. This particular situation really is not a big deal, and it is no problem at all to just ignore it now and pick it up again later when you have some more time. Remember, Wikipedia is a long-range project. (I have to remind myself of that fact on a regular basis.) —Bkell (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Bkell. I apologise for having to add more to this wall of text. Anyway, thank you for kindly drawing my attention to the plight of the file File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg. When I originally uploaded it, I knew nothing about licensing or where to find the info on Wikipedia, and almost nothing about my subject Abramov. Since then I have learnt a bit more about Abramov and the original source of his image (still keep coming across useful licences and losing them again). On that basis, I've corrected the image filepage, and as far as I know it's now OK. Please would you now look at File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg and remove the deletion tag as it now contains an inappropriate message. Please note that I have now corrected the licences of about half of the images on the soloists page, and I have it in hand to do the rest in the next week or so - but as you know my time is not my own. What is worrying me is that I now know how I should have licensed the other files which are now deleted - and it's too late, although you said the files are retrievable. If I click on their red links and then the history tab, and hit "undo" and re-license them correctly, will the sky fall on me? Sorry again for all this writing, and thanks for your help so far. Please notify me on my talk page of any reply.--Storye book (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The source and rationale on File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg is very well written and complete. I've removed the "no permission" tag, since it obviously no longer applies. If there are other similar images that have been deleted and you think they should be restored (with appropriate sources and rationales, of course), just let me know their names and I'll undelete them for you. I'm afraid you won't be able to undelete them yourself; undeletion is one of the few administrator-only actions here on Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could re-upload the file and recreate the image description page, but it would probably be less work to just undelete it. Let me know how I can help you out. Thanks for all your work. —Bkell (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wooooo! Thank you. Big hugs. And I'm even catching up on the marking schedule (sort of). This is a good day. With this encouragement, I'll do a few more of those soloists images. I'll do those first as they are the most vulnerable to the vultures, then if it's OK with you, I'll come back to you about the lost images. There is one which is extremely important, as it concerns the recently-discovered history of the 1948 concert, and it forms part of the evidence for this history - and that in turn forms evidence for what happened to one of the soloists who may or may not have been purged. So you are kindly assisting with something historically valuable. Thanks again.--Storye book (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update: the licence for File:Eisenach.jpg was corrected a day or two ago, but the tag is still there. What's the prognosis on this one? Also I'm a bit worried that your message on its discussion page gives the impression that all my other soloists' image files are still improperly licensed (whereas most of them are now corrected, and they will all be correct in a few days). Please could you possibly add an updated comment? I know you have already put in a link to the above subheading - but now there's all this text, no-one's going to read all this. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think File:Eisenach.jpg is fine now. I'm going to leave the {{pui}} tag on it until the discussion at PUF is closed, just to have a link to the discussion in case someone else stumbles across the image like I did. At this point, I've tried to frame the PUF discussion as a request for general information about the copyright status of old Soviet photos for future reference. I don't know if there will be any response, but at this point you should not worry about the status of File:Eisenach.jpg; I can pretty much guarantee it will be kept, considering the new information that has been provided. But I think we should let the PUF discussion run the full 14-day course in hopes of getting a useful reply that might give us a clearer understanding of the copyright situation surrounding images like this. (If we don't get any help at PUF, it might be useful to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.)

I did not mean to imply by my comments anything about the other photos you've uploaded; by "this image and others like it" I was specifically referring to the three images being discussed here on my talk page (File:Bse sci lib com.jpg, File:NicolaiAAbramov.jpg, and File:Eisenach.jpg), all of which seem to have been cleared up now. You are doing excellent work in your investigation of the sources of these images—thank you—and I think that will be evident to other editors too. I for one will be glad to stand up for you if anyone acts hastily without realizing the work you've put in. —Bkell (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thx for support and for all you've done, Bkell - very appreciative. V. busy today - will continue updating licences tonight or tomorrow. Thx. --Storye book (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Bkell. I was performing admin closures at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 5, and I noticed your question there: "I would still like to understand the situation for old Soviet photographs though, for future reference. Is there a specific date before which Soviet photographs can be considered to be in the public domain?" The short answer is no. The long answer is, well, long.

User:Lupo is Wikimedia's Most Valuable Copyright Guru, in my opinion, and he did a lot of research into that question. As he detailed here, Soviet copyright is determined differently by different successor states. Lupo explains, "We thus need to apply the appropriate successor state's laws. E.g. for a work first published in Leningrad, apply Russian law. For a work first published in Kiev, apply Ukrainian law." For Russia, the gory details are at Commons:Template:PD-Russia-2008, but most of the time the work will be PD only if the author died before June 22, 1941. But Ukraine is different: the details are at Commons:Template:PD-Ukraine, but Ukrainian works are always considered copyrighted in the U.S. if the creator died in 1946 or later (or is still alive). For other Post-Soviet states, the jury is still out, but there aren't too many of those works. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 01:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the links. I will have to go through those more carefully when I have some more time. —Bkell (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Brackenhall 050.jpg

Help! This is my own copyright image - no probs there - but I have decided off my own bat to edit out the top edge of the image as it showed exhibition prints along the very top of the wall which may themselves be under copyright. As you can see I've made a right mess of the uploads. The page needs the 11.08 9 June 2009 version image and thumbnail only, with the 19:53, 31 May 2009 description only. The initial 19:53, 31 May 2009 thumbnail image needs to be removed in case of possible future copyright complaint. Sorry about causing more mayhem.--Storye book (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's where we find that there's another spanner thrown in the works. :-) This image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, which is good, since it's a freely licensed image and the Commons is an appropriate place for that. However, I myself am not an administrator on the Commons, only on the English Wikipedia, so I can't perform administrator actions (such as deletion) on Commons images. So we're going to need to go through the official Commons channels if you want certain versions of the image deleted.

I am not as familiar with the way things are done on the Commons as I am with the way things are done here on the English Wikipedia, but I'll try to make a couple of helpful suggestions. The place to start might be Commons:Deletion policy, in particular the section about regular deletion. The easiest way to list a Commons image for deletion is to use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox on the left side of the screen from the image description page; see also Commons:Deletion requests#How to list deletion requests. (Be sure to note, of course, that you want only certain versions of the image to be deleted.) In this particular case, however, since you're asking for something more straightforward and less controversial than most deletion requests, you might be able to shortcut the usual deletion process by just asking an administrator on the Commons to help you out. Some of the administrators I'm familiar with include Angr, Dcoetzee, Howcheng, MECU, and Quadell, mostly because they have done a lot of work with images here on the English Wikipedia too. If you'd rather not ask a particular administrator, you can post on the administrators' noticeboard and ask directly for administrators' help, or on the Commons help desk for general help.

I'm sorry that I can't offer more direct help here. If you run into difficulties, let me know and I'll do what I can. —Bkell (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Bkell for going to so much trouble on my behalf. I'm sure I don't deserve it. Luckily Quadell has been kind and helpful to me in the past, so I can ask him/her with confidence. Cheers and thx for more excellent advice. Much appreciated as always. --Storye book (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Belyaev1940s.jpg

Sorry it's me again. Don't know what I've done this time, but I've made an image disappear. I swapped two images on the Evgeny Belyaev page, because the screenshot that I wanted to write a commentary on (for its licence rationale) was inconveniently in the infobox. After I did the swap, the screenshot image File:Belyaev1940s.jpg just refused to show up on the article page, and its thumbnail has disappeared on its image filepage. I've finished the rest of the task OK - the new licence, commentary and rationale are done, and the other swapped image is fine and happy in the article infobox. I'm sure I haven't coded the image wrongly in the article. Could it just be that there is some part of this image that's on a different Wiki server, and the image will probably come back tomorrow? --Storye book (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to be working fine for me. Have you tried reloading the page in your browser (and possibly clearing your cache)? Alternatively, sometimes when images get "stuck" they can be fixed by adding ?action=purge to the end of the URL for the image description page; this forces the Wikipedia servers to recreate all the thumbnails. For example, for this image, try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belyaev1940s.jpg?action=purge

A similar trick that can be useful for articles is to make a "null edit": click "edit this page" and then save it without making any changes. Such an edit won't show up in the article history, but it does force the servers to regenerate the article. But as I said, I'm not seeing any problems with this image, either in the thumbnail on the image description page or in the Evgeny Belyaev article. —Bkell (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thx Bkell - you've saved the world (well, Wikipedia, anyway) again. I tried all your suggestions, and predictably it was the first thing you suggested and the last thing that I tried that worked. So clearing the cache brings images back, eh. Duh I should have known - how embarrassing. Thank you again for your kind help. --Storye book (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird thing

Bkell, what's the weirdest thing that ever happened to you? -Creaturepolice

I don't know. Probably a coincidence of some kind, though many coincidences are a lot more likely than one might think. —Bkell (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleter

Bkell has deleted three of my pages. He has gone far enough. When you read this Bkell, you'll see how I roll.

Deleter

Bkell has deleted three of my pages. He has gone far enough. When you read this Bkell, you'll see how I roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creaturepolice (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am getting a feel for how you roll. —Bkell (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rossport Solidarity Camp

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rossport Solidarity Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossport Solidarity Camp. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I didn't really contribute much to the article; I mainly just moved some images to the Commons. So I don't really have an opinion about whether it should be kept or deleted. —Bkell (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Langmuir Blodgett Möbius Kuhn (LBMK) layer.jpg

Hello

File:Langmuir Blodgett Möbius Kuhn (LBMK) layer.jpg

Permission granted by the author Dietmar Möbius and by the publisher Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany for use on Wikipedia expected that due credit is given to the original source.

This file has been set onto the "delete"-list. My interests are that this file is NOT deleted. Thank you. CarsiEi (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

CarsiEi (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. As far as I can see, File:Langmuir Blodgett Möbius Kuhn (LBMK) layer.jpg is not (currently) listed for deletion. The only pages that link to this image are Hans Kuhn, which uses the image, and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/February#Hans_Kuhn, a discussion from February in which you participated. I left a message on your talk page in May (see User talk:CarsiEi#File:Dietmar Möbius Manipulieren in molekularen Dimensionen 1975.pdf listed for deletion) about a different file you uploaded, a PDF (File:Dietmar Möbius Manipulieren in molekularen Dimensionen 1975.pdf), which has since been deleted. So I do not understand your request; perhaps I am missing something?

Now, that being said, the image File:Langmuir Blodgett Möbius Kuhn (LBMK) layer.jpg is currently being used under a claim of fair use, since it is apparently not available under a free license. Using an image under a claim of fair use on Wikipedia requires that all of the non-free content criteria be met. I am not sure that this image meets criterion #1 (no free equivalent) or #8 (significance). Could you explain in the non-free use rationale on the image description page why the use of this image in the article Hans Kuhn satisfies these two criteria (and the other eight as well)? Unless it can be established that the use of this image meets all ten of these criteria, or the image is released by the copyright holder under a free license or into the public domain, the image may be listed for deletion in the future.

Please let me know if you need help or have further questions. You can also ask questions at the media copyright questions page, as you did in February. —Bkell (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Last Thing I Remember

Hi Bkell. I am considering starting a page for The Last Thing I Remember. Is there any specific thing that you saw on the original page that was flawed, so that I can create a better page. Thank you! Diligence 5960 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What follows is the last version of the article The Last Thing I Remember that I deleted in April. As you can see, it reads like an enthusiastic book review that is trying to persuade someone to read the book—it does not have the tone of an encyclopedia article. When writing an article about a work of fiction, remember to maintain a neutral point of view, avoid advertising or promotion of the subject, and cite sources to avoid original research or personal opinions. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, which have some guidelines about writing such articles. —Bkell (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A new series brought to you by Andrew Klavan. called "The Homelanders"

This book is fast paced and keeps you turning the pages. He really knows how to catch your attemtion on the first Paragraph.

Summary:

Charlie West is a normal kid with a normal life. But things take a confusing turn in his life. And it seems that he can’t remember how he got there. He finds himself in a cellar with one illuminated light bulb hanging by a wire. Along with that he is strapped to a chair that is bolted to the ground, covered in blood, and a tray of surgeon-like tools, save for a small blow torch like object, on top of a white table cloth, covered in blood too... Crying over frustration, pain and the remission of his family he hears voices outside his door. And the only things that his mind focuses on are the two simple words... "kill him"

Who should read it?

This book is more heavily steered towards a young adult and teen age group, but moreover is has a very moral concept, however it’s up to the reader to figure out what the moral is… Overall it is a great book and a real page turner.

More On This Author

Andrew Klavan

==bibliograghy

Thank you... I agree, it felt like I was reading the back of the book. Diligence 5960 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Recall

Your user page states you are open to recall. What is the procedure you use? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. I've avoided writing some list of strict rules for it because I feel it should be kept fairly informal. So I guess the procedure is something along these lines: If a handful of Wikipedia editors with a reasonable amount of experience indicate that they feel my adminship should be reconsidered, I will gladly submit a new RFA, with the understanding that if the RFA fails I will voluntarily relinquish my administrator status. —Bkell (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Borel sets

Hi Brian,

I was wondering about the follow-up on your question on Borel sets on the refdesk. Did you figure out whether your argument was correct or not? What was the actual question, and how did you argue? --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My paper is at school at the moment. I've been busy this weekend. I'll come back to the RD with a reply tomorrow. Thanks for your answer, by the way. —Bkell (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted the question and my answer on the Reference Desk. —Bkell (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I've added a comment to the same thread. --pma (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Knot (unit)

You recently edited out my reference to Google maps -- that's probably good, I am nervous about putting in references to commercial entities. However, I put it in because I suspect that many, perhaps most, readers don't have a clue what a graphic scale is. Wikipedia is no help. Graphic scale redirects to Scale (map), which doesn't define "graphic scale" and is scary in its technicality. Do you have any thoughts how to solve this? Anything easier than writing an article for Graphic scale to replace the redirect? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure of the precise definition of "graphic scale"—I am assuming it is the little bar on a map that shows how many miles one inch represents, or whatever. (I must admit that the Google Maps reference was helpful to me in figuring this out, so I agree that it needs some clarification.)

A very quick stub giving a definition of graphic scale and a link to scale (map) would be sufficient. It would be nice to have an image of a graphic scale. I was unable to quickly find an image on Wikimedia Commons of a graphic scale alone, but File:MaunaKeaMap.jpg is an example of a map with what I presume is a graphic scale in the corner. Do you know of a reliable source we could cite that defines the term "graphic scale"?

In lieu of creating an article, the phrase "graphic scale" could be briefly described in parentheses where it is used in the knot (unit) article.

Let me know if I can help you out. I would be willing to write a stub article, but I would need to make sure I know what I'm talking about. ;-) —Bkell (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Scale (map)#The terminology of scales refers to "(graphical) bar scales", which seem to be what I imagine you mean by "graphic scales". Are these simply different terms for the same thing? Or perhaps a bar scale is a particular type of a graphic scale? —Bkell (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first paragraph description is right on the money. Thinking about it overnight, I decided to write a short article. Illustrations will be no problem -- I can grab a couple off of US Government (public domain) charts and maps. Thanks for your offer to write it, but I know all the refs to use and can probably turn it out faster than I can get you set to do it. Besides, once it's done, having an interested reader who doesn't know the subject well would be a good thing for final clarifications.

Thanks for raising the "bar scale" question -- I've always called it a graphic scale, but that may be from my engineering training or may be a British English / American English difference. I note that Bowditch, the navigator's bible, has a definition for "Bar Scale", but not "Graphic Scale" in its 45 page glossary. IHO Chart #1, which defines international usage on charts, calls it a ""Linear Scale". On the other hand, the existing redirects (two red, two blue) speak to at least one other user of "graphic" and "graphical":

• Graphic scale
• Graphical scale
• Bar scale
• Linear Scale

Thanks and Happy New Year, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)