User talk:Postdlf

• Archive 1: 01/30/04 - 09/30/04
• Archive 2: 10/04/04 - 12/16/04
• Archive 3: 12/24/04 - 04/13/05

• Archive 4: 04/14/05 - 06/20/05
• Archive 5: 06/22/05 - 09/03/05
• Archive 6: 09/04/05 - 11/12/05

• Archive 7: 11/13/05 - 02/21/06
• Archive 8: 02/23/06 - 05/06/06
• Archive 9: 05/08/06 - 06/16/06

• Archive 10: 06/21/06 - 08/22/06
• Archive 11: 08/29/06 - 01/03/07

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
The Second City is the current Chicago COTW In the past you have edited Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. It was the CHICOTW in the recent past. It has been placed on Good article on hold status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the good article and eventually featured article classification level. The article was given good article on hold status on February 2, 2007. It will be reevaluated in between 2 and 7 days from this date. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History.
Contributing editors: AKeen, L Glidewell, NatusRoma, TheQuandry*, TonyTheTiger.
	Good article nominee/Good article on hold

TonyTheTiger 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category system "ownership"

Am I alone in thinking that User:Hmains exhibits ownership/control issues with regards to Wikipedia's category system? I am becoming increasingly alarmed by the unitary decisions/changes he is making. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have not yet seen him continue to make a change after it's been the subject of complaints, so I don't know that it's necessarily an issue of ownership. He just makes a lot of changes, many of which others have viewed as mistakes or simply not constructive. Postdlf 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I feel that what Hmains is doing in U.S. state category hierarchies is unitary and not entirely constructive (e.g., improper nesting/separation of related subcategories). I'm thinking that Wikipedia needs some kind of "convention" to decide how state and city category hierarchies are to be structured, so that the decisions are no longer unitary in nature. I love the "be bold" philosophy of Wikipedia, but somehow I become very uncomfortable when this philosophy is applied toward categories, and that's because we're getting into how subjects are best searchable, and when one person decides it, and we don't know the rationale for the decisions, I think we are getting on a slippery slope. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closings

Yep, I figured that out for the second day of closing. Thanks. Do I need to fix that page? >Radiant< 08:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already took care of it.[2] Cheers, Postdlf 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xxxchurch

Hey, thanks for your edits to Xxxchurch. I'm aware that URLs can change - mostly I just stuck them all in there as a quick-and-dirty way to get some references in there so that there would stop being so much controversy over whether the page qualified as notable (it just got undeleted after what I believe is the THIRD AfD discussion). Anyway, thx. Plymouths 00:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg

The design for "Make Way for Ducklings" was created by Nancy Schon at the behest of Suzanne DeMonchaux, an urban planner from Boston. Funding for the sculpture came from a non-profit citizen's advocacy group and installation was arranged by the city of Boston. The sculpture is placed on public property and the work has been declared by the Boston Art Commission to be a piece of public art. Since a property release is not required for photographing public property, I think that Wikipedia does not have to claim fair use for this photo. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether you're permitted to take the photograph is a separate issue from what you are permitted to do with your photograph afterwards. Could you mass produce and sell prints of your photograph with no risk of litigation? You seem to be claiming that the City of Boston has effectively dedicated the sculpture to the public domain, which may or may not be true, and doesn't necessarily follow from the sculpture being funded by a non-profit org or placed in a public place. Absent specific information as to its current copyright status, or any information on whatever license the City may have granted to the public regarding the sculpture, we should leave the fair use tag in place. If you still disagree with me, I will post the issue on Wikipedia talk:Fair use to get more comments. Postdlf 20:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the question of commercial use, there is at least one photographer who is doing just that [3]. I searched for specific information on the sculpture's copyright and found several indications (though no explicit licensing details) that the sculpture was dedicated to the public domain due to its installation on public property and being specifically referred to as "public art". I know that at least in one case, Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago (which dealt with the Chicago Picasso), that the city was found to have released a sculpture into the public domain by general publication. To be on the safe side I'm going to contact the Boston Art Commission for clarification of the sculpture's copyright status. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. In any event, the image should have information on the sculpture's copyright status, whatever that might be. Postdlf 21:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Law categories

Hi Postdlf. As you may have noticed, some of us at WikiProject Oregon are just itching to put any SCOTUS cases that involve the State of Oregon into some/any Oregon category. I made this little draft list quite a while ago that I thought could create a way to gather all the cases in one place without making a mess of the categories. (please ignore the improper capitalization) Do you think this a good approach? Or is it better to incorporate into an existing article? Which one? And if I take it live, what categories would it make sense to put it in? At least one Oregon category, I hope. Thanks for looking into it! Katr67 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for awhile for the states generally, and I think list articles are the best way to go, such as List of Oregon Supreme Court cases reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and/or List of United States Supreme Court decisions involving the State of Oregon, which can then be placed in the state-specific category as well as a SCOTUS subcategory. Categorizing the SCOTUS case articles themselves will cause unnecessary clutter and incorrectly suggest that a SCOTUS decision was simply a matter of state law or that the state court had the last word. The list articles can organize the information and contextualize it in multiple ways, such as chronologically, by legal issue, or by whether the Oregon Supreme Court was reversed or affirmed. Postdlf 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. If you don't mind, I'll direct the project members to this discussion--a couple of them are much more patient about putting tables together than I am, and I can see that your suggestions would look smashing in a handy table. Do you know of any other states that have lists like this? Katr67 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not yet. I had been thinking of creating one for my own home state of Ohio. I've worked quite a bit with SCOTUS case lists and tables: here's an example. Postdlf 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, came to talk about the Oregon Supreme Court category you were changing around last night. My questions is, with moving all of the justices to that sub, what is left for the main category? The only thing right now is the article about the OSC, and if there is just one sub cat then what is the point. At least that is why when I created the category I included the justices, because there was nothing else. And there will likely be little to add, especially when an item like Oregon v. Guzek is removed. Which I think should be in the OSC cat as it was not only a OSC case first, and thus can be categorized as such since OSC is not a sub of SCOTUS, plus the article was created as an OSC article first with no mention of the SCOTUS appeal, the SCOTUS decision came later. Obviuosly the reason it was created at that time was because of the appeal, but it would have been article without the SCOTUS decision. I'm not trying to own the OSC stuff, as I have done most of the work there, just trying to understand your reasoning as I will be continuing to work on this area to expand it.

As to Katr67, if you look here, I'm working on an article roughly titled "Oregon law" in my sandbox that should tie everything Oregon law related together if that helps. Aboutmovies 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The justices absolutely have to be in their own justice-specific subcategory, to function as articles about people in the larger category scheme—check the parent categories of Category:Oregon Supreme Court justices to see what I mean. As for case articles that were once about OSC decisions such as Guzek, it would be a mistake and a deviation from practice to categorize those by whatever lower courts heard the case prior to the article-defining decision: no court decision articles are categorized in this manner. Whatever importance the OSC decision may have had initially, when the SCOTUS reversed it, it became a mere historical footnote to that SCOTUS decision, with no value as precedent. As mentioned above, a List of Oregon Supreme Court decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States could go in the OSC category, and organize and explain that information in one place without adding either an incorrect "Oregon Supreme Court case law" category to each SCOTUS case article, or a cumbersome one like what the list article will need.

At any rate, articles should never be categorized for the benefit of a category (i.e., to keep it from being underpopulated), only by what helps the article's subject matter. Postdlf 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if SCOTUS affirms a OSC decision, then can it go into the OSC category, such as Muller v. Oregon, or no? And then with the OSC cat, I guess I need to be more clear. If, as there is right now (minus the OSC article itself), there are no articles, should the OSC cat simply be removed. I have no problem with the justices having their own cat, but if there is nothing on the OSC cat and the justices cat is a sub, shouldn't the justices cat be moved to the Oregon law cat (which OSC is a sub of) and the OSC deleted? Your thoughts?Aboutmovies 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's an affirmance, it still should only be categorized as a SCOTUS decision, because by reviewing it, and by issuing their own opinion, SCOTUS makes the case theirs and the article is always organized on that. The lists I proposed are really the way to bring those decisions under Oregon-specific categories; any good list of notable OSC decisions will necessarily include those which SCOTUS affirmed. Regarding the OSC category, I understand your point about its present state, but why put any effort into deleting it? It will eventually become more populated, so we'd just have to recreate it, and it certainly isn't harming anything at present. I also just made the justice category also accessible through Category:Oregon state court judges. Postdlf 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, regarding your Oregon law rough draft, be careful about losing your focus with a bunch of ultimately unrelated lists. That a case "involved the state of Oregon or Oregonians" does not mean that it was about Oregon law. Law of the United States should be the model for how one writes an article about the law of a particular jurisdiction. Perhaps you should focus on separate lists (List of Oregon state court decisions?) instead of the broader topic? Postdlf 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are no unrelated lists there. The title is tentaivly Oregon law, but the article is (as should be clear by the large amount of non statute or case law information, i.e. what the law is) going to be about anything law related in the state of Oregon. Criminals, failed ballot measures, overturned ballot measures, law schools, old laws, law enforcement, the law making process, etc. Similar in that the casebooks from law school contain overturned cases that are no longer good law in order to tell the broader picture of what law is and the evolution it has been through. It's not just about the ORS, OAR, and case law. Do you have a more approbriate title? I was basing it off the Oregon law category that we have and had no intentions of people mistaking it for what the current law is in the state. Aboutmovies 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Parisse image

Hi, Postdlf. You mention in your userpage that you had the opportunity to take a picture with Annie Parisse. As we don't have any free image availlable for this person, would you consider releasing your image under a free licensing and uploading it to Commons? Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on it, because the pic would be high res and a great portrait of her, but it's a little complicated. The pictures that I have possession of were ones my friend took of me and her, and my friend has the ones I took of him and me, all with his camera. He's been rather slow in discussing it with me, but as soon as I sort out with him which one of us owns what or gives permission for what I'll post a cropped version. Postdlf 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to bother you

I have a few more questions in relation to the Evanescence-like image. Assuming for the moment that an image is clearly free and not particularly large, would it be allowable to use purely as decoration? That is, would improving the appearance of a page benefit the encyclopedia?

I don't know if the old New York Yankees "N Y" logo is still trademarked or copyrighted, but assuming the letter "Y" in that style could be freely used, couldn't something like that be used to connect the various pages about the team, while not implying it is their official logo?

I have no idea how what this note sounds like, but be assured that I'm just trying to understand the issues here, and your responses have been helpful so far. Gimmetrow 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Category:Women Writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of prod

Hi. I was just browsing around, and came across the article 100 Greatest Stand Ups. I saw that it was prodded by yourself, and rightly so. I agree with your reasoning entirely, and also feel that it should be deleted.

However, when an anonymous IP removed the template without discussion, you reverted the edits. With most other edits, this would be fine, and the done thing. However, it seems that with prodding, taken from the template itself, "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.". In that case, as far as I am aware, it should go to WP:AFD, as a contested prod. There are quite a few such entries on the most recent page. I would go and add it there myself, but my ISP cuts my bandwidth between 6pm and 11pm, with the current time being 6:56pm where I am. --Dreaded Walrus 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the article would probably be gone faster if put down the AFD route. --Dreaded Walrus 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and upon reading that back, sorry if I come across as slightly condescending in my tone, it really is unintentional. :) --Dreaded Walrus 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)