User talk:Explicit
|
Non-free image of cod tongue box
[edit]Explicit, sorry to trouble you. I recently passed Cod tongue at GA; at that time the article contained File:Faroe cod tongue box lippukassan.png with a non-free license. Nom had written an NFUR but I expect it was too generic, resulting in your F7-ing the file. In my view, the historic image is really necessary for the article, as the use of the cod tongue box represents a historic practice of cutting and counting the tongues (so that the crew would get properly recompensed) which has long since died out, so the image could not now plausibly be recreated. The practice is described and cited in the article. If you could undelete the image, I'd be happy to take over the NFUR to document it properly. Many apologies that this didn't go as smoothly as it should have. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: The image had the following caption accompanying it: "Faroese sailor counting cod tongues beside the ship's cod tongue box". The file was tagged for violating WP:NFCC#8, which states that the use of a non-free file is permitted if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How would this image satisfy this criterion? See WP:NFC#CS for reference. ✗plicit 13:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Explicit: Many thanks for discussing. I am sorry that the caption was insufficient. The image is in the context of the accompanying section of main text, which explains that there was a custom in the Faroes of cutting out the "tongues" of the cod and putting them in the dedicated cod tongue box, so that the contributions could be counted and the crew recompensed. The historic photograph showed this process in action. Along with the treatment of cod tongues as a delicacy, this practice is clearly a major focal point of the article, and deserves illustration. A free image cannot now be taken as the practice has ended. Clearly we should have explained the image further in the caption, and repeated the citation there; I'll be happy to do that, and to write a more detailed and apposite NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) This is just my personal opinion (to be fair I've haven't seen the actual deleted image itself), but there's nothing really in Cod tongue#North Atlantic Islands that would seem to justify the use of any non-free image of this practice; so, if this would've came up for discussion at WP:FFD, I would've likely !voted that the file's use didn't meet relevant policy. If, however, you're looking to add more commentary about the practice, I would suggest adding it to that particular section, not the image's caption, to strengthen the contextual connection between article and image. Moreover, you should try to make it sourced critical commentary about the practice that just goes beyond being just a description of what was done; anything unsourced runs the risk of being removed which will likely lead the image to be nominated for deletion again, and text alone seems, at least to me, more than sufficient alternative to non-free use for simply describing the practice. Any sourced critical commentary you can find about the particular image itself (e.g., it was such a gross image that led to a public campaign to end the practice) would be a big plus.Lastly, even though this is no longer common practice, if someone (anyone really) could reasonably be expected to duplicate it (by a freely photo or video), then you're probably going to have issues satisfying WP:FREER regardless of how much critical commentary you add to the article about the practice. When it comes to non-free content, "historical" has a slightly different when it's used with respect to photos; historical photos of events tend to one which have themselves been the subject of sourced critical commentary over time separately from the event they're depicting; so, even though the practice itself may be historic, photos of it are not necessarily historic by default. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I will add the sourced text first if that makes it easier for everyone. The Faroese practice explained in the source is like the foreign one but far more chaotic so it needs to be described and cited. As I said, the image could not now be re-created, the practice has long ended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Did the practice end because people just stopped doing it or was it banned by the authorities? If people just stopped doing it because it became outdated or some reason like that, then perhaps someone could recreate it. Is this, by chance, the photo that was deleted? Do you remember anything about its provenance if it is? I just searched "cod tongue box lippukassan" on Google and that's the first photo that came up. Google says the photo is used in Cod tongue but the same photo can no longer be found in the article; so, I thought that might be the photo and Google is just showing a cached version of the article.Anyway, if the practice was common in Faroe Islands many years ago, then perhaps there's another photo that might serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the one that was deleted but which has already entered into the public domain. A photo taken before January 1, 1945, would've entered into the public domain under the copyright law of the Faroe Islands on January 1, 1995. Such a photo would also be within the public domain under US copyright law because it would've been in the public domain in the Faroe Islands before January 1, 1996, which is the URAA copyright restoration date for most countries under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- It became obsolete (as everywhere else). A recreation by actors would not be the same as a historic photo, so I don't think we need worry on that score, the NFUR can readily explain that. The image may not be unique but I can't find another. It's quite possible it's pre-1945 but the image is not dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- An old photo isn't historic because of its age or because what's written about it in an NFUR, at least not when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it's historic because there's something about the photo itself that has led to it being discussed by reliable sources and referred to as historic. If the photo is the same one I linked to above, I think you might have a hard time establishing a consensus that satisfies Wikipeda's non-free content use policy if it ends up being discussed at FFD. Anyway, I'm not trying to give a hard time about this. If you can provide a link to the photo you want to use, I can try asking about it over at Commons VPC. Some of the Commons regulars are pretty good at sorting out the provenances of photos and perhaps one might get be able to figure where the one you want to use originally comes from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'll think about it, and yes, you are giving me a hard time, I'm afraid to say. The photo shows a captain counting the cod tongues from the lippukassan while the crew watch; that is a rare record of a process that no longer exists, as the fishery ended in 1958, so it is certainly a "historic" image within the meaning of the act. I've written up the practice now in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- An old photo isn't historic because of its age or because what's written about it in an NFUR, at least not when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it's historic because there's something about the photo itself that has led to it being discussed by reliable sources and referred to as historic. If the photo is the same one I linked to above, I think you might have a hard time establishing a consensus that satisfies Wikipeda's non-free content use policy if it ends up being discussed at FFD. Anyway, I'm not trying to give a hard time about this. If you can provide a link to the photo you want to use, I can try asking about it over at Commons VPC. Some of the Commons regulars are pretty good at sorting out the provenances of photos and perhaps one might get be able to figure where the one you want to use originally comes from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- It became obsolete (as everywhere else). A recreation by actors would not be the same as a historic photo, so I don't think we need worry on that score, the NFUR can readily explain that. The image may not be unique but I can't find another. It's quite possible it's pre-1945 but the image is not dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Did the practice end because people just stopped doing it or was it banned by the authorities? If people just stopped doing it because it became outdated or some reason like that, then perhaps someone could recreate it. Is this, by chance, the photo that was deleted? Do you remember anything about its provenance if it is? I just searched "cod tongue box lippukassan" on Google and that's the first photo that came up. Google says the photo is used in Cod tongue but the same photo can no longer be found in the article; so, I thought that might be the photo and Google is just showing a cached version of the article.Anyway, if the practice was common in Faroe Islands many years ago, then perhaps there's another photo that might serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the one that was deleted but which has already entered into the public domain. A photo taken before January 1, 1945, would've entered into the public domain under the copyright law of the Faroe Islands on January 1, 1995. Such a photo would also be within the public domain under US copyright law because it would've been in the public domain in the Faroe Islands before January 1, 1996, which is the URAA copyright restoration date for most countries under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I will add the sourced text first if that makes it easier for everyone. The Faroese practice explained in the source is like the foreign one but far more chaotic so it needs to be described and cited. As I said, the image could not now be re-created, the practice has long ended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) This is just my personal opinion (to be fair I've haven't seen the actual deleted image itself), but there's nothing really in Cod tongue#North Atlantic Islands that would seem to justify the use of any non-free image of this practice; so, if this would've came up for discussion at WP:FFD, I would've likely !voted that the file's use didn't meet relevant policy. If, however, you're looking to add more commentary about the practice, I would suggest adding it to that particular section, not the image's caption, to strengthen the contextual connection between article and image. Moreover, you should try to make it sourced critical commentary about the practice that just goes beyond being just a description of what was done; anything unsourced runs the risk of being removed which will likely lead the image to be nominated for deletion again, and text alone seems, at least to me, more than sufficient alternative to non-free use for simply describing the practice. Any sourced critical commentary you can find about the particular image itself (e.g., it was such a gross image that led to a public campaign to end the practice) would be a big plus.Lastly, even though this is no longer common practice, if someone (anyone really) could reasonably be expected to duplicate it (by a freely photo or video), then you're probably going to have issues satisfying WP:FREER regardless of how much critical commentary you add to the article about the practice. When it comes to non-free content, "historical" has a slightly different when it's used with respect to photos; historical photos of events tend to one which have themselves been the subject of sourced critical commentary over time separately from the event they're depicting; so, even though the practice itself may be historic, photos of it are not necessarily historic by default. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Explicit: Many thanks for discussing. I am sorry that the caption was insufficient. The image is in the context of the accompanying section of main text, which explains that there was a custom in the Faroes of cutting out the "tongues" of the cod and putting them in the dedicated cod tongue box, so that the contributions could be counted and the crew recompensed. The historic photograph showed this process in action. Along with the treatment of cod tongues as a delicacy, this practice is clearly a major focal point of the article, and deserves illustration. A free image cannot now be taken as the practice has ended. Clearly we should have explained the image further in the caption, and repeated the citation there; I'll be happy to do that, and to write a more detailed and apposite NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salliyargal. It's still open for 5 days after AfD nomination Withdrawn. SaTnamZIN (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Peter New
[edit]Hi. Will you please reconsider undeleting the Peter New article? Because all the page needs is just more references and sources. I could help. By undelete, I do not mean re-creating it, I mean restoring it to before it was initially deleted. Thank you. -- ILoveRichardSimmons (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ILoveRichardSimmons: Hi, I've merged the page history into the existing draft. ✗plicit 04:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, but will the main page itself be undeleted with all the previous history like before? -- ILoveRichardSimmons (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Placing a redirect instead of an article that was deleted under PROD
[edit]Hey Explicit, I just noticed today you had deleted Care.com under WP:PROD. Would I be okay to recreate it as a redirect to its parent company, IAC Inc.?
Full disclosure, I am employed by Care.com. More precisely, I am employed by the european subsidiary/division Care.com Europe GmbH in Germany. I do not, and never have or will, edit Wikipedia on their behalf. The only editing involvement I had on the now-deleted article was using InternetArchiveBot to archive a dead source there once.
As far as I am aware, recreating a page that was deleted under PROD is not against policy, but I also want to avoid even the perception of COI here, therefore I wanted to ask you first. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Gurkubondinn: Hi, I'm not sure if WP:COI uses "editing" specifically to adding text to articles or more broadly to include things like creating redirects. For transparency purposes, a request at WP:AFC/R may be a better route to take, as you are allowed to request changes to pages where you have COI. ✗plicit 04:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Me neither, but even if it isn't strictly against policy, it wouldn't feel right to just up and do something like this on my own. Thanks for mentioning AFC/R, I had completely forgotten that it was a thing! That seems like the most reasonable way to go about doing this. Cheers, --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Done: Diff/1335288159. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- And thank you Lynch44 for creating the redirect. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Pueblo, Indiana's edit history
[edit]Could you either restore the page and create a redirect in place of the article, or merge the article's edit history into Ohio Township, Spencer County, Indiana? I merged content from Pueblo, Indiana and the attribution is now lost due to the page being deleted. Thanks, Katzrockso (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso: Consensus did not support that option, so no. ✗plicit 04:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Explicit per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, it is a policy necessity (derived from copyright law) to have the edit history accessible when copying from one article to another, hence why I proposed two possible resolutions to this issue. There was also no positive argument against redirection, meaning that WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD (
If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
), two Wikipedia policy applies here and mean that the only policy-based evaluation of consensus is a redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)- @Katzrockso: There was no support to merge any of the content to another article, so there is no reason for you to do so. I will not be responding to any further queries regarding this AFD. ✗plicit 05:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Explicit per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, it is a policy necessity (derived from copyright law) to have the edit history accessible when copying from one article to another, hence why I proposed two possible resolutions to this issue. There was also no positive argument against redirection, meaning that WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD (
Deletion review for Pueblo, Indiana
[edit]An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pueblo, Indiana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Changing date format with script
[edit]Hello @Explicit, i have a question how do i change the date format with script to other articles, i already install the date format script on my common.js user page. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)