User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2017/September

Replaceable fair use File:Tram in London.png
Thanks for uploading File:Tram in London.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, we can't have "turbine-powered trams" in articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Electrical trams and locomotives only became prevalent after a significant period of steam engines well into the first half of the 20th century, which is fairly notable. However, I'll let you go with it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll "let me go with it"? Well thank you for your gracious permission to edit here, according to our policies on copyright, accuracy and sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concern is valid. I meant I won't bother arguing about the distribution rights of this indivual case. Chicbyaccident (talk)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Coat of Arms of the Order of Friars Minor.png
Thank you for uploading File:Coat of Arms of the Order of Friars Minor.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file 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 files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's alright, as far as I know there are better image alternatives around anyway. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox church/doc
I have undone your move of Template:Infobox church/doc. First WP:Precise is an article title guideline and does not apply to templates. Second the document page is a subpage of the template Template:Infobox church but that was not moved, breaking links between them. Templates do not have to have 'good' names like articles, and many have terse, even inscrutable names like zh, nihongo. If you really think the template should be moved then open a requested move, but I think it would be unlikely to succeed for the reasons given above.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Please stop changing Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church is correct in British English. This distinction needs to be made, particularly on pages mentioning Anglo-Catholicism. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know which edit you are referring to. If you are referring to Naming conventions (Catholic Church), please consider discussing that on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church). Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referencing your edits to Anglo-Catholicism and Anglican–Catholic dialogue. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. The WP:Consistency reference was to this move. For convenience, please adjust the location of your objection to the edit of and any percussions referenced to this on Talk:Anglican–Catholic dialogue. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Heraldry templates
There are dozens of heraldry templates because there is too much information to put into a single footer template. Merging them all is a really bad idea. please stop. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I have answered you here: Template talk:Heraldry footer. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

UGCC Hierarchs
Why did you move the template again? It's not an infobox about the "history" of the hierarchs, it's an infobox that lists the "historic hierarchs". The previous title was much better. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Inquiry answered at Template talk:History of the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Please consider reviewing the hatnote of the talkpage. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had not noticed the hatnote. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible duplicate, or overlapping Categories
Greetings Chicbyaccident, While updating articles listed in Template:Roman Catholic dioceses in France, I discovered these categories.
 * Category:French bishops
 * Category:Roman Catholic bishops in France

Wondering if these might be duplicates that can be combined into one? In addition, there is a general Category:Catholic bishops that is missing from most of these articles so I am adding this one too,

I do not know much about Categories other than how to add to articles, so I thought you might be able to investigate further. Any advice is helpful. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also found Category:French Roman Catholic archbishops — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And Category:French Roman Catholic bishops — JoeHebda • (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Watch out for WP:SUPERCAT. These aren't duplicates, even if one is a subset of the other. I would expect that almost all entries could be placed into the one most specific cat and the others could then be implied without having to place the articles into the parent cats. Quite possibly "French bishops" would end up with just one entry, the subcategory, and that would be just fine.
 * There's also the question of whether all French bishops are Roman Catholics. There are some Anglicans and Episcopalians, but do they have a diocese? How does that archdeaconry thing work? There's also the question of sedevacantists - any bishops in France? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Greetings! Yes, I would say is right. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)