Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 November 9

= November 9 =

My original photograph
I submitted a photograph of Coprinus comatus, the shaggy ink cap, lawyer's wig, or shaggy mane mushroom on about October the tenth. I took this photograph myself, and I own it wholly, in it's entirety and I am the sole owner. I tried in my submission to convey that. The submission page kept forcing me to claim it was not mine but I had good reason to use it under 'fair use' basically. It was since taken down and the explanation was sent to me saying:

"Replaceable fair use File:Coprinus comatus, the shaggy ink cap, lawyer's wig, or shaggy mane mushroom.jpg[edit] Ambox warning pn.svg Thanks for uploading File:Coprinus comatus, the shaggy ink cap, lawyer's wig, or shaggy mane mushroom.jpg. 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:

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. 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)"

This photograph was submitted for use on Wikipedia by me for use on the article/page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprinus_comatus

How do I submit this original photo as my own?

Thank You, Bigredwine1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigredwine1 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be able to specify that a photo is yours when using the File Upload Wizard. I'm not sure under what circumstances it would force you to claim fair use. The file in question is [[File:Coprinus comatus, the shaggy ink cap, lawyer's wig, or shaggy mane mushroom.jpg]]. Perhaps an administrator can undelete it so it can be relicensed. Pinging and  for input. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you chose "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" in the File Upload Wizard. Don't do that. Choose "This is a free work", assuming you are willing to release the photo with a free license which allows everybody, not merely Wikipedia, to use the photo. If you are unwilling to do this then the photo cannot be uploaded. Above you said "for use on Wikipedia", and on the deleted file page you said "I as the sole owner and creator of the photograph wish it to be used here, and enthusiastically endorse it's use here on Wikepedia". This is not sufficient and would not allow undeletion of the image. Wikipedia allows others to reuse its articles and images. But you can choose a license which requires reusers to give you attribution. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikimedia Commons already has 63 pictures of Coprinus comatus. I wouldn't go to a lot of trouble to add a 64th. Maproom (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * commons:Category:Coprinus comatus has 289. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When a generic trademark is the common name
Is there any prohibition on using a trademarked name for an article on a generic product, if that's the most common name?

Here's the issue, as described by two sources:

"Frequently mis-glossed as “Assault Rifle,” the AR in “AR-15” refers to its original manufacturer, Armalite. Of course, the key patent was filed sixty years ago and has long since expired; today, “AR-15” is a trademark of Colt Defense LLC and, over the years, “AR-15” has evolved into a generic trademark, a proprietary eponym like Velcro, Kleenex, Xerox, or Tupperware. Civilian AR-style rifles encompass anywhere between four to nine million weapons used for purposes ranging from recreational target shooting to varmint and predator hunting to simply being kept under beds, in closets, or on mantles."

"The rifle was so successful and popular with GIs that a civilian, strictly semi-automatic version was soon produced, known as the Colt AR-15. Although “AR-15” remains a Colt registered trademark, the rifle today is produced by dozens of different firearms manufacturers around the world."

That accurately describes the current situation. The countless clones, variants, and other copies are collectively referred to as "AR-15s" by a huge number of sources. ("AR-15" -colt) = about 12,700,000 results on Google. ("AR-15" -colt) = about 227,000 results]. Books and even magazines have "AR-15" in their title to refer to generic, AR-15 style firearms. Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline that prevents us from using "AR-15" for the title of an article describing the these various weapons that are not necessarily made by Colt? This relates to a discussion at Talk:AR-15_variant. Felsic2 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Felsic2, seems like this a WP:COMMONNAME issue as far as choosing an article title is concerned. If you mean whether this might be a situation similar to WP:COPYVIO, I believe the answer is a fairly certain no. There are many articles on companies or products that are almost certainly trademarks in some respect, and WP allows the non-free use of things like company logos in particular circumstances. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's how I see it too. Felsic2 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, this sounds like a sticky situation. I'll offer my personal take on the matter. Other editors may have a different take, but here's my advice. First of all, just to note that if it is actually true that "The countless clones, variants, and other copies are collectively referred to as 'AR-15s' by a huge number of sources" then Colt has a problem.


 * If Colt is busy chasing these sources down and issuing please-correct and cease-and-desist letters, then they are actively protecting their copyright, or trying to. In that case, we should not use the term "AR-15" for a non-Colt product, except for quotes (model name being a quote). thus, in my opinion:
 * OK: "The Veeblefletzer AR-15 is a weapon which...."
 * OK: "The Veeblefletzer Mayhem is a weapon described as an 'AR-15' by the company ..."
 * Not OK: "The Veeblefletzer Mayhem is a type of AR-15 made by..."
 * I would also stay well away from "The Veeblefletzer Mayhem is a type of weapon commonly called an AR-15,  made by..." as that is getting too cute with the company's trademarked term, IMO.


 * If we don't know whether or not Colt is actively protecting their trademark, we should assume that it is, absent evidence to the contrary.


 * If we know that Colt is not actively protecting their trademark -- if they've given up -- we might have a little more leeway, but really I would prefer to wait for if and when a judge ever rules that they've lost the game and "AR-15" has become a genericized trade mark, and if that's gone through appeals, and it's a jurisdiction that we respect (generally, most major developed nations respect each others jurisdictions on this I believe, but I don't know the details of how this works)... or if the company explicitly releases the trademark (unlikely)... then we are free to go by what best serves the reader to understand what we are saying -- the criteria for that usually being something like "what do most worthwhile sources call it?" Herostratus (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Colt currently doesn't sell any products that it calls "AR-15". I'm not aware of any trademark enforcement activities.
 * There are a couple of problems with being unable to write about the generic product. One of the biggest is that many, perhaps the majority, of sources simply refer to the "AR-15". Not the "Colt AR-15" or the "Armalite AR-15" or "AR-15 variant". For example, let's say a source says "The AR-15 is the most popular type of rifle in America." Where do we summarize that source's information? Felsic2 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, it appears that it seels something called a "Colt AR15A4" and a "Colt LE6920MP-B AR-15 Carbine Magpul Furniture SA 223/5.56 16.1" 30+1 Blk", etc. Felsic2 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is totally incompetent on this subject matter. Of course Colt is still making AR-15's --RAF910 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. The personal comment wasn't necessary. Felsic2 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

games
How  to download games  snd apps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.123.5.57 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2016‎ (UTC)


 * You don't do it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a software store. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Player to the Soccer Player Template
Hello! I can't find a way to add a player to the soccer template, please advise how to do this.

THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.150.234.158 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are lots of soccer templates. Please name the player and link the page you want to change. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Gracias, but I don't want to change any page, rather I want to ADD a new player to the appropiate template. Help?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.150.234.158 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you probably have got the understanding of templates wrong. Generally, we add templates to players' biographies and not vice versa. We do add players to categories, if that's something that might interest you. If you can name the new player (or the template you are alluding to), we could help better. (Also, please type ~ after your statements to sign your statements). Thanks. Lourdes  18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still very unclear what you want. You haven't named the player or made any effort to link or describe the template or page you are interested in. Do you by any chance want to create an article about a soccer player? That is not what your question indicates but if it's what you actually want then you can submit an article via Articles for creation. The article can use Template:Infobox football biography but this is not a requirement. You can click the "Edit" tab on existing articles to see how they do something. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How to start creating my page in Wiki?
pindur 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)pindurpindurI made registration and now How to start creating my page in Wiki?pindur 16:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Fine (talk • contribs)


 * If you mean a user page, their purpose is described at WP:User pages. If you mean an article, the advice is at WP:Your first article, but you are strongly recommended to get experience editing existing articles before you start to create one from scratch. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To begin creating your user page, click on your account name (Gregory Fine) near the top of the screen. You will be taken here where you can type what you want in the text box, then click "Show Preview" or "Save Page" at the bottom to preview or save the page. Herostratus (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One more possibility, (Hello, Namesake!) is that what you are intending is to create an article about yourself, as many people do come here to do. If that is your intention, please read this to understand why writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist preferences
Even though I've turned off the watchlist preference "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist," any page that I edit, including talkpages, get added to my watchlist. I've turned the preference on and off several times in the last 24 hours, but it hasn't helped. I am really not sure what to do. Can someone offer some advice? Thanks. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  17:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a similar problem (albeit with different "preferences") some time ago - It resolved itself after I logged off, shut down my computer, reopened my computer and logged back in again. May have been a coincidence, but worth a try. - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try that. Thanks! ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  00:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)