Talk:Monarchy of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces

Fair use rationale for Image:CF Gen.jpg
Image:CF Gen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PPCLI.JPG
The image Image:PPCLI.JPG 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:


 * Image:Queen Mother's Banner.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
It seems to me that it is easier to have one note to edit rather than two identical ones, the other not always guaranteed to be remembered when one is edited. Sure, readers have to click one additional link to get through to that note; but, that appears to be a minor issue in comparison to that of proper maintenance of consistency and thus clarity. Besides, is it not common in the publishing real world for readers to be directed to this and that note or appendix at different locations in a publication? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a talk about this for the Canada article (I cant find it). But basically the conversation was a how the Canada article is FA level and the same note that our reader had to search for. During the talk people said its weird to have to go to a secondary article for the info. So it was moved over.Moxy (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. That seems like it has the potential to become messy, especially since we're now talking about at least three identical notes and not just two. What happens if one is edited by someone who doesn't know there are two other versions out there of the same note? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure - but I dont see the info changing ant time soon...may be just some links may go dead. The whole conversation was about how we were referring to another article for the ref when all we had to do was copy and past it over... Al that said I was neutral in the talks and don't realy care either way. As both ways led to the info eventually.  Moxy (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Article title
Article title seems to violate MOS:AT. Should we change/move?-- BC talk to me 19:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)