User talk:KrytenKoro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Atomic-Fire
Please don't upload images from Atomic Fire unless you have some further source (such as where they were originally published). Atomic Fire doesn't give any sources where they got their images, and we need to know where the images came from originally. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the zero15 image is originally from the official website. Why is it still counted as unsourced?
- Because it's still sourced to Atomic-Fire, and, well, how do you know it's from the official website? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.capcom.co.jp/product/rockmanzero/index.html and the page for the megaman zero game. It's ON THE BOXART. Yes, Atomic Fire has the image in it's galleries. However, all of Atomic Fire's images in it's "Official Art" galleries, from which I obtained the image, are from Capcom publications (or at least, I've not yet seen an image that's not, and certainly not the images I submitted). On that note, why is MegaMan Network acceptable but not Atomic Fire? Atomic Fire is as respected, if not more so, than MegaMan Network. For that matter, megaman network no longer even exists at the link provided. If it's meant to be http://megaman.retrofaction.com/, the gallery there doesn't even work. I propose that if the Atomic Fire images should not be included, the megaman network images should DEFINITELY be removed, unless you can explain why they should stay by without the atomic fire images.
- Well, where did that cropped version come from, then? The difference does matter, and vague sourcing isn't sufficient. I hate to be a jerk about this, but sourcing images to Atomic-Fire just isn't enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Cropped? That's the image from Atomic Fire. And the sourcing for the other images only listed the website where the image was obtained. Could you please provide an example of what you need me to provide? Maybe with hypothetical data or something?KrytenKoro 06:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh! If you mean the image with the white background, that's the base image in the manuals and in the guides as well. Do you mean that I need to change the source to the manual, then? It was an image they obtained from Capcom digitally though, I presume, from the quality of the image. Oh, and it's also on the mmz2 official page, where it could apparently be obtained by copying it from the flash movie.
- We need to know where the image was originally published. If it was scanned from an artbook, we need to know that. If it was from a promotional kit, we need to know that. It's not really sufficient to say "This image also appears in such-and-such context"; if it's obviously too high-quality than a manual scan, we can't source it to the manual. "Official image from Capcom" isn't sufficient; we need to know under what circumstances the image was released, and what changes have been made to it since it was released and by whom.
- It's your bad luck that you sourced these images to atomic-fire; I've been cleaning up these poorly-sourced images by website, and I just finished cleaning up images sourced to AF. I'll be working on other fansites when I get around to them, and those images are doomed if not better sourced as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- There, I sourced it to the mmz2 site, where I know it appears, in that form. If you want, I could use the watermarked version, which would be directly sourced to AF.KrytenKoro 07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, have you verified that AF is a poor-source for images? The images that have been on all of the MegaMan webpages for as long as I've known them have been sourced to much lower-quality fanpages. AF at least tells where they got the images, whereas most of these sites say nothing at all.
- AF is a poor source; it just got nailed first because there were so many images from AF. The other images need to go, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, have you verified that AF is a poor-source for images? The images that have been on all of the MegaMan webpages for as long as I've known them have been sourced to much lower-quality fanpages. AF at least tells where they got the images, whereas most of these sites say nothing at all.
- There, I sourced it to the mmz2 site, where I know it appears, in that form. If you want, I could use the watermarked version, which would be directly sourced to AF.KrytenKoro 07:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, you still need to address whether the Megaman Network images deserve to remain. Their source neither exists nor is the producer of the image, so shouldn't those images be removed as well?
- They need to go, too. I'm just lazy and still working on the gobs of images from Kawaii Dream. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not just finding a better source for them instead of removing a vast quantity of information that clearly adds to the article. I mean, its obvious that they are the correct, official images, so its not a problem of authenticity. Why not just identify a website with the images that you would accept, and rewriting the source information? Or re-uploading the same image from a new source? In the end though, AF clearly states that they recieved the images from cleaned manual scans and Capcom press kits, and I've seen the exact same images in the guides and manuals, so it's not hard to beleive them. Especially since they have actually talked to and interviewed Capcom members.
I'm not going to pretend to know the technicalities of the licensing rules, so I will let you proceed deleting the images sourced to all the fansites, and I'm sure someone else will eventually come up with a cogent argument. However, I think that if there was a problem with how all the images sourced to the many fansites are done, then it would likely not be so widespread.
- The problem is that these images likely aren't sourceable at all, and likely aren't appropriate to Wikipedia, as oftentimes the creator is attempting to sell them (in artbooks or such). Atomic Fire doesn't make any distinction between promo photos (almost always okay, in moderation), manual scans (acceptable in moderation), artbooks (NOT OKAY), unlockable extras in games (almost always not okay), and magazine scans (almost never okay). Half of those sources wouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia, and AF (and Kawaiidream and Megamannetwork and many other such fansites) don't make any distinction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The art in the artbooks is totally different: sketches and concept art. The images from the regular galleries are images that have been provided for free viewing, and from art provided in the press kits. These are a combination of manual, press kit, and official website images.
- Well, even manual scans are iffy, and many sites ask that you not rip images off of their sites willy-nilly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Concept_Buster_Shot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Concept_Buster_Shot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Concept_Recoil_Rod.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Concept_Recoil_Rod.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Concept_Recoil_Rod_2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Concept_Recoil_Rod_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Zero15.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zero15.JPG. 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 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
