Talk:Winnipeg

Flag icons

There has been some disputes to have flag icons in the infobox on various cities WP:INFOBOXFLAG states: "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not." Meaning that cities, being human geographic articles could potentially be permitted to have flag icons. In addition there are many other articles such as New York City, Moncton, Fredericton, Las Vegas, etc. that have flags in the infoboxes. I am interested to see you input. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They are allowed, but not required, and I'm not sure they add much value here - the Manitoba flag in particular is quite hard to recognize at that size, and is unlikely to be recognized by most readers anyway. I see you have been going through articles systematically to add/remove these - you would probably be better off waiting until a definitive consensus either way emerges at the relevant guideline pages (where I see you have posted), or failing that just leave it to the discretion of those working on each individual article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point you made about its size. The Canadian flag however, is easy recognizable. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#flagicons in infobox. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article use the SVG files of the Crest and Flag from Commons?

Extended content

This RFC also applies to Flag of Winnipeg and Coat of arms of Winnipeg It is currently disputed by Nikkimaria whether File:Flag of Winnipeg.svg and File:Crest of Winnipeg.svg are free-content images. For this reason, they have taken it upon themselves to police these three articles in refusing to allow their use of these images. To further this, they have uploaded low-resolution PNG versions ([1] & [2]) under non-free content licenses and will only allow their usage on these articles. I therefore ask the community to decide if we should use the files from Commons or not. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Support for using the images from Commons Y Whereas Wikipedia and Commons have a relationship dependant on trusting Commons' ability to determine the status of the images it hosts. These SVGs have already undergone DR process and have been sofar determined by Commons to be free content. It is preferable by Wikipedia to use, wherever possible, free images from Commons. Nikkimaria has no proof of these images being non-free, and refuses to re-nominate them on Commons for further scrutiny Nikkimaria does not appear to have any problem with the use of File:Flag-of-Winnipeg.jpg on Flag of Winnipeg, which were the flag copyrighted would be in conflict with such a preference and would not be allowed on that article either. Nikkimaria's motivation for these actions appears to be based on the self-serving desire to elevate the status of the article for the City of Winnipeg rather than a truly serious concern about these images' copyright status. I see no valid reason against using the Commons files. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Y I support them I guess, but without all the heavy "anti-other poster" rhetoric. Nikki does good work, FYI. Krazytea(talk) 21:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I have not stated anything outside of their actions regarding this issue, or any judgement of such. As "anti-other user" as it may sound, I have attempted to keep this factual and specific. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC) comment With the crest the uploader asserts, it seems, that they grant the release of this image into the public domain. This particular work is not copyrightable under US law, as they are mere reproductions of the originals. I'm not sure the uploader, whether or not they created it, can release this image into the public domain. This could be an issue. Nikkimaria's position seems to be that you should show that this image is in the public domain and you don't seem to, though correct me if I am wrong @Nikkimaria:.@Fry1989:, Where have these images already undergone the DR process? Why would this alternate flag not be allowed in the article? Nikkimaria, you apparently hold the position that this alternative flag would be accepted, how does it differ from the flag that Fry1989 wants? Or more specifically why is it acceptable? Fry1989, So you mean Nikkimaria hasn't went offsite to the wikimedia commons to have this removed? Let me offer you another piece of trivia, Nikkimaria hasn't went to the French wikipedia to have this removed either[3]. This is not important but neither is her lack of action over at the wikimedia commons. Nikkimaria may not be familiar as to what actions to take there or long list of acceptable reasons for nor going there. Being Thursday would simply be an acceptable reason for not doing so. But since you have mentioned this and suggested that we actual put weight behind it, I notice that you yourself could have done this but as of yet have not. That self serving desire, eh? This page is a FA already. She's trying to take an effort to maintain that status it seems. This as far as I am aware is standard practice in regards to FA's. Consider toning down the rhetoric.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC) The versions currently in the article are of lower quality, in accordance WP:NFCCP 3b; they also have a fair-use tag and rationale. The images Fry proposes are on Commons, where fair-use tags are not acceptable, and are of higher quality than would likely be permitted under fair use. I do not believe that the tags used by those images are supported by the evidence given so far: as you note, they are derivative works of non-free images, and the PD-Canada designation that one asserts has not thus far been adequately supported. In the absence of clear evidence that the images are free or freely licensed, we are obligated to assume they are non-free, and act accordingly - using lower-quality versions hosted locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) There is no such obligation at all. You claim they are disputed, but only by you and you will not take this through proper channels. You admitted yourself what our true motivation is. Furthermore, I have spoken with several Commons admins, and they find it extremely disturbing your belief that you have the right to side-step the trust between Wikipedia and Commons regarding licensing and unilaterally decide if an image is rightfully licensed and prevent it's use on Wikipedia. Fry1989 eh? 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, there is such an obligation, both here and on Commons. See for example c:Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified,[1] along with the original source where the file is a derivative work... If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence... In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed". That burden of proof has not been met here. See also WP:COMPLIC: "If in doubt, assume you cannot use it". My "true motivation" is to ensure that images used on this article are appropriately licensed, and this is an appropriate place to discuss that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Your motivation is irrelevant when you refuse to go through proper process. Those I have spoken with agree with me that in our many many years of involvement with Wikimedia (7 years alone just for me), we have NEVER seen your behaviour before and that it is wholly inappropriate for one user to take on the role you have chosen. You got away with it the first time I brought this up only because you were an admin and were able to pull the "admins stick together" narrative and whine that I was harassing you and threatening me with a block. You don't have that excuse this time around. YOU have decided all by yourself that you think Commons was wrong and that you will refuse to let Wikipedia use the files in question. That's inappropriate on many levels, and honestly I think it is you who should be blocked since you refuse to do things the right way, when as a former admin you should know better. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) For the information of others looking on, Fry is referring here to a thread he began at ANI in June 2014. As can be seen from that thread, Fry's description of events is not correct (I did not participate in the ANI at all). Indeed, Nick-D and others responding agreed that the licensing of these images was problematic. Fry, you ostensibly posted this RfC to resolve the question of whether or not this article should use these images; you could best achieve your desired outcome by providing evidence to demonstrate that they are appropriately licensed, rather than continuing down the path you are now pursuing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC) My recall of the events are absolutely correct. I was not harassing you, I raised a very important question: Do Wikipedia users have the right to circumvent the trust between Commons and Wikipedia and decide by themselves that a Commons image can't be used on Wikipedia. This isn't about copyright and it never was. If it were about copyright, you would get some pep in your step and go through the right methods, including going to Commons and nominating the image for a second deletion review, which you refuse to do even though I have asked you to more than once. What this is about is the relationship between Commons and Wikipedia. Commons handles it's copyright affairs and Wikipedia is supposed to trust that. What you are doing erodes that trust, and if you can decide all by yourself that Commons is wrong and block the use of an image locally on Wikipedia, then what is to stop any or all users from taking the same course of action? That is harmful, I see it as such, I know several Commons admins who see it as such and I'm sure Jimbo would see it as such were it brought to his attention. The question I raised last year was never properly answered, instead I got the "admins stick together" response, was told that I was harassing you and to let it go or else be blocked. Whether you personally cried "he's harassing me!" or your colleagues did so on your behalf does not matter, it is the response I received and it deliberately ignored the very important question at hand. Fry1989 eh? 20:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The trust between the English Wikipedia and the wikimedia commons? Interesting, it's a bit loaded, but interesting. You follow this up with a Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Then you obligate Nikkimaria to conduct some activity off Wikipedia and then suggest if she does otherwise this simply wouldn't be about copyright at all. The commons handles it's copyright affairs and Wikipedia just trusts it? Sure but could you link me this policy? If this question is the utmost important question being ignored could you do something to put some weight behind it. New to this dispute, being brought here for the first time by the RFC bot, this sounds like a new argument and you have not offered much that I would consider this with any weight. Could you drop the hostility, please? It's not helpful. You keep casting aspersions without doing anything to back them up. This reads like a conspiracy theory. Nikkimaria and all the Admins are out to get you and you will take it to Jimbo. Nikkimaria has at least offered a case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I didn't say I was taking this to Jimbo nor do I have any such intention. What I said (and I would enjoy you reading my statements for what they actually say and not what you think they say in the future) is that I, several Commons admins, and no doubt would so Jimbo were he aware, are disturbed at the erosion of the trust this action causes between the two sister projects. Commons purpose is as a image repository for all Wikimedia projects, to serve as a single place for all images wherever possible. Yes there are images that can't be on Commons for copyright reasons and they have to be hosted locally under NFCC, but that is the last resort and undesirable. As I queried, if Nikkimaria can self-appoint to decide that a Commons image is wrongly licensed and therefore personally interfere in it's usage on a local project (in this case the English version of Wikipedia), what is to say other users can't also do so? Can I also decide I think Commons is wrong about one of it's images, and by myself force it's exclusion from an article here on Wikipedia? Can anyone? The relationship between the two projects demands that not be possible and that if there is a concern that a Commons image is wrongly licensed, it be dealt with there. Nikkimaria doesn't want to, and while they most certainly are not being forced to, if they choose not to they shouldn't then take this course of action. Fry1989 eh? 03:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, pardon, you didn't argue that you would take it to Jimbo but just that he simply wouldn't like it. Argumentum ad Jimbonem none the less. What I've said is that you haven't linked to any English Wikipedia policy or guideline. You have been hostile, casting aspersions, and most of your comments read like a conspiracy theory. Now you follow your appeal to authority (that of the commons admins and really again Jimbo) with this appeal to emotion. If Nikkimaria can unilaterally do this then so can anyone else? Well except she didn't do this unilaterally. She did this based on a policy interpretation and in order to maintain this articles FA status. You have responded by ignoring her policy basis and you haven't actually offered any policy basis yourself. If it should be dealt with there, then provide a policy basis. You do not speak things into being. Right now, Upholding this FA seems a whole hell of alot more important than upholding your sense of "tradition". -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Given that Jimbo is frequently scathingly critical of Commons, stating that he would be upset by criticism of it is rather ill-informed... Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Critical he may be, but I still believe that he as well as most users would be disturbed by the undermining of the intended relationship between Commons and the other projects. Serialjoepsycho accuses me of drawing on "emotion" and "tradition" in replacement of policy, but the fact is that Commons is supposed to handle it's copyright affairs and in order for Commons to serve as an image repository for the other Wikimedia projects the trust in Commons ability to do so is paramount. I ask the question I have always asked regarding this matter in earnest: If Nikkimaria can decide that Commons was wrong and block Wikipedia's usage of one of the images hosted there, what stops any and all other users from the same course of action? I don't see that as an emotional argument, I see it as a very serious issue. If Nikkimaria is concerned about the copyright of this image, they can visit Commons and re-nominate it for a second review. Considering the unified login and the two being sister sites, it's not like Wikipedia is Facebook and Commons is Tumblr, a completely different website. I'm not asking them to do something very difficult and it would only take maybe 2 or 3 clicks of the mouse at most. But it is imperative that the question of the image's status be dealt with there, not here blocked by one user who disagrees with Commons' decision. I have tried to explain this pandora's box in the most simple of ways, surely you can understand my concern when the proper channels are not being observed. Fry1989 eh? 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Again you continue and again you have not shown the policy. I've said that you appeal to emotion and tradition because I've read your responses. You have offered no means to verify any supposed policy that you are discussing. Show the policy that says that the English wikipedia should ignore it's own policies regarding copyright and leave it to the Commons. Make it a serious issue by justifying it with policy. Nikkimaria has pointed out that the image is improperly licensed. Nick-D, along with others, pointed out that it was improperly licensed in the above linked ANI. You can click on the picture and review the license and see that it is improperly licensed. File:Flag_of_Winnipeg.svg This is a derivative work, the creator isn't the original creator of this flag. If it was public domain before this recreation it remained public domain after its creation. The creator can not release a public domain work into the public domain and also can not release a derivative work into the public domain as they do not own the copyright. File:Crest_of_Winnipeg.svg presents the same error. It also provides that this crest is in the public domain. There is no way to verify this. You do not argue against these points. You only argue that we should defer to the commons. Again if we should defer to the commons and this represents policy, as you suggest it does, then please just link the policy so we can verify. You are suggesting that something is being done wrong here yet you don't actually show this. Show it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I have made quite clear what my argument is and I won't entertain your goading demand that I quote some policy when I have never claimed such. There is a clear intent for Commons to serve as a unified image repository for all projects and the only way that is possible is if Commons is trusted in it's competency to handle its own affairs and when an image's status is in question that it be handled there. If you are incapable of answering (as you seem to make it clear you are) for me what I see as a very serious question and undermining of that intended relationship, don't then skip around demanding I quote some policy you imagine I've claimed. Answer my question, or don't, but don't pretend I've said things I have not. It is not a difficult thing to go nominate the image for deletion which is the proper way of dealing with this if you believe Commons is wrong about the status of one of it's images, and as much as you demand I quote some policy Nikkimaria's action is not rooted in policy either. There is no policy for one user to block Wikipedia's usage of an image hosted on Commons in this manner and it is unacceptable. Don't waste my time with further spurious demands. Fry1989 eh? 17:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not goading you. The Commons should be trusted to handle its competency but not at the cost of the English Wikipedia's competency. WP:IUP is Wikipedia policy. Before uploading a image as public domain make sure that you can prove that an image is public domain. There is no, "but it's on the commons" exception that I can see. Either you can show this image is public domain or you can not. Don't ask for trust if you can't provide verification. That is simply blind faith. You want us to ignore WP:IUP, and we can with a consensus, but a consensus is not a vote. I'm asking you for policy to provide some swaying factor for your position. You could open up a deletion discussion over there and then provide evidence that these images are public domain. You could skip that step and simply show here that these images are public domain. The facts that these images are improperly licensed has already been shown. The facts that there is no evidence that these images are public domain has been shown. Going back to 2014 in June, WP:IUP was used as a basis and more clarity was provided that these images were improperly licensed. This was explained to you at the ANI opened. This has been explained here. It has also been mention that this article is a featured article. WP:FA mentions that there are 4,485 Featured articles. FA's are the best quality work that we have here at the English Wikipedia. There are no better. Your pictures would do not meet the standard set for Featured articles WP:FA?. This would require to meet the FA status. Both following wikipedia policy and maintaining a featured article hold more sway to your feelings about how things should be. WP:CONEXCEPT makes the position that we are co-equal to the commons, the position you present is that we are subordinate to the commons. The images they host are not up for consensus here and the images we use from there right here are not up for consensus from there. Your position might as well simply be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You keep talking and providing irrelevant details. Though you may have saw in your Crystalball what Jimbo might think, unless he comments here we simply can't know what his position would be. The commons moderators positions are irrelevant. You have mentioned that this you had already undergone a DR process and asked to show where they had, yet you ignored this. A DR that we can't review isn't relevant. Provide something. Some swaying factor. As far as your question, it was already answered. Nikkimaria had a policy based reason to remove these pictures. Any Wikipedia editor can make a similar change to an article to make it conform to policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC) You want policy, WP:NFCC#1 clearly applies. So long as there is a free equivalent, a NFCC file can not be used. The fact remains that as long as those files remain on Commons under a free license they remain considered a free equivalent and Nikkimaria's NFCC upload can not be hosted by Wikipedia. There is only one proper way to dispute their free status, and simply deciding all by yourself that you think it isn't free and blocking it's use on Wikipedia in this manner doesn't cut it. I have explained well enough the only proper way of dealing with this and that is somebody, whether it's you, Nikkimaria, Nick-D or whoever else that thinks it isn't free, getting off their behind and going to Commons and nominating it for a new review. You can't have it both ways, you can't say it's not free and host an NFCC file on Wikipedia, but let the file remain on Commons under a free license. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Without evidence that the images are free, they cannot be considered free equivalents. Opening this discussion in yet another forum (Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2015_March_22#File:Flag_of_Winnipeg.png) doesn't change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) As I have stated, you can not have this both ways. The policy demands (under the section regarding enforcement) the deletion of your images, UNLESS you will do what is required and I have explained what that is. Fry1989 eh? 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ WP:NFCC#1 would apply. If there was a free equivalent available. There is no evidence that there is a free image available. Your evidence is that there is one on the commons. This is not evidence it is free. This is evidence provided that this is on the commons. The license is wrong. It does not comply with Wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with you. Again your proof is that it is in the commons. Yes I see this. Everyone see's this. We aren't asking that it be proved that it is in the commons but that it is proved that the image is free. Beyond proving that it is in the commons you have proved nothing at all. You done so in a rather hostile manner and you have been very verbose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC) I support using the images from Commons. Concerns about the copyright status of Commons images should be taken up on Commons, not here on Wikipedia. As long as the image is on Commons, it is perfectly fine for us to use it in the article here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I'm just passing by and have no knowledge of the copyright status of these particular images but I have to say that Fry1989 is being rather rude to Nikkimaria and quite unclear as to his case. Please stick to just points of discussion and not wild ramblings and accusations. Point form should suffice to make your point. Points can then be debated one at a time. I'm the third person on this very thread to say something similar, so you might want to consider changing your attitude to promote a more positive and constructive discussion. Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Opposition to using the images from Commons As I indicated in the discussion on my talk page, the burden of proof as presented above is not correct: we need to be able to prove that the images are free or freely licensed, and absent such proof we must assume they are non-free. The images are both sourced to other files that have since been deleted as being non-free. The source given to support the crest being in the public domain fails to do so: although it mentions an earlier version of the Coat of Arms - which was the basis used in the DR to claim that the current version is a derivative of an older, now-PD work - it does not clearly indicate to what extent the current crest differs from the original nor what the creation date of the original was, and so cannot justify the use of the {{PD-Canada}} tag. Nor can the crest be solely derived from the textual blazon given in that description - it relies instead on the now-deleted previous image. I would love to see someone present evidence to demonstrate conclusively that the images are PD, but unless someone does so, we can't use them - issues with Commons aside. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The source is not used in any manner to assert the copyright status of the image. It simply provides confirmation of the image's existence, as all Commons images have sourcing requirements. Secondly, there are proper channels to go through when you believe an image is not compatible with the licensing requirements of either Commons or Wikipedia, but you refuse to go through either and instead feel it appropriate for you to be sole judge of these images' status and whether they can or can not be used. That is an abrogation of the proper way of doing things. Fry1989 eh? 21:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) If, contrary to what you indicated in the DR, the source's sole purpose is to demonstrate that the image exists, then do we have any evidence at all that the given copyright tags are correct? Without that, we can't use them here, regardless of what Commons chooses to do with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I haven't read through the above (and won't, given that it appears to rehash the ANI discussion from last year in which there was a consensus that the images aren't usable). This is a no-brainer: both images are clearly improperly licenced on Commons (the PD-Self claims made by the uploaders are patently false) and so should not be used here. Moreover, if they are used in this article, then it would be in clear breach of FA criterion 3, and hence consideration would have to be given to delisting the article. The first three points in Fry's statement above indicates a misunderstanding of the relationship between En-Wiki and Commons: all the various Wikimedia projects are independent of each other, and we are not bound by the results of Commons' generally very poor quality deletion processes: I'd suggest that we have much higher standards, especially in regards to the content of FACs - and this was the consensus of the ANI discussion. I have no idea why this is being rehashed a year later, complete with entirely unjustified attacks on Nikki, who really does know what she's talking about and really isn't going to be motivated by some kind of ulterior motive. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC) WP:NFCC#1 clearly disagrees. You can not have a free equivalent on Commons and an NFCC file on Wikipedia simultaneously. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC) NFCC doesn't make a case against anyone. It actually stands more to hurt your case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) You asked for a policy, I gave you one. I don't have to prove the Commons files are free, that has already been decided and a rag-tag team of users on Wikipedia don't get to just ignore that without properly asking for a new review. Either nominate them, or the NFCC files have to be deleted. You can't have it both ways. Fry1989 eh? 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Yes I in fact did ask for policy. I am still waiting for policy. NFCC especially #1, does not back you. NFCC #1 says that we should use free content in place of non-free when it's available. It does not say that we should use commons photo's in place of non-free. The photo's have to be free. The images that you suggest be used on the commons are (and this point has been extensively covered) not properly licensed. There is no (again let's repeat this) evidence that the images on the commons are free and to be more specific, there is no evidence that the these images are in the public domain. With WP:NFCCE the burden of proof has long been met. It was met a year ago. This burden of proof is now yours. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) All should read over Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fry has stated that "I am not opposed to locally-hosted SVGs and would cease my pressure on this matter once they were uploaded". This has been done and the PNGs have been replaced in the article with the locally-hosted SVGs. This should resolve this matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable People Section

I recall that featured articles should not have subsections that are blank, or simply a link to another page as we do here for "notable people". Either way it does not look very appropriate, I wonder if we can either write a short paragraph with the key notable people, or relegate the link to the see also section. As is, I'm not sure it's appropriate for a featured article. Mattximus (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "featured articles should not have subsections that are...simply a link" is accurate, but I've moved the link to See also nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)