Talk:Eric Ravilious

Fair use rationale for Image:Whitehorse1.jpg

Image:Whitehorse1.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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Plane

2/9/1942 - No.269 Sqn. - Hudson IIIA FH385: 'V' Failed to return from search for 269/M, lost the previous day. Presumed ditched. 43198 F/Lt Alfred Charles CULVER DFM,MiD RAF + 110123 P/O Neville James GRAVES-SMITH RAFVR + 915066 F/Sgt William Henry Robert DAY RAFVR + 912131 F/Sgt George Neville BARNES RAFVR + Passenger - Capt. Eric William RAVILIOUS RM (Official War Artist) + Culver,Graves-Smith,Day & Barnes, commemorated on the Runnymede Memorial. Ravilious, commemorated on the Chatham Naval Memorial. http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?5435-Flt-Sgt-Thomas-Richard-Prescott-269-Sqdn-R.A.F/page2

and here: http://archive.is/5Yyf a snapshot of www.oca.269squadron.btinternet.co.uk now gone we have the following: "Three Hudsons of No 269 Squadron searched for missing aircraft Hudson M, one of which was flown by the Station Commander, Gp Capt Hill with Flt Sgt Yorston as second pilot. One of the three search aircraft also failed to return. No 269 Squadron ORB records (Appendix F) " Flt Lt AC Culver DFM, Plt. Off. NJ Graves-Smith, Flt Sgt WHR Day and Flt Sgt GN Barnes reported missing from operational trip." But the RAF Kaldaðarnes ORB states: "Capt E Ravilious ceased to be attached from Royal Marines. Captain E Ravilious missing with 269 Squadron aircraft FH385". (n.b. Eric Ravilious was an Official War Artist who had been recognised before the war as an artist of considerable merit who had only arrived on the airfield the day before). Looking for reliable source."(Msrasnw (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

Attribution does not demand clutter

I fully understand that the IWM requires attribution, but this can be done perfectly well by providing a reference in the with the image; this keeps the required information on the same page. If we need a compromise, we can say "Imperial War museum[1]" with the code numbers in a footnote so the attribution is complete and unambiguous.

The actual licence only says on the matter "acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution statements specified by IWM and any other third parties ( © ......) and where possible, provide a link to the source (eg. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/2143);"

I note that Wikipedia policy is not to place "©" in articles, and that we normally provide links in footnotes or references. It would therefore be best to comply by providing such a link along with the image code, though the latter is not demanded by the licence.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Including the attribution statement beside the image title is hardly clutter but rather the simplest and most visable way of displaying the required credit and is the format used on hundreds of instances across WP.14GTR (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear your opinion, but have a different one. The "millions can't be wrong" argument can be used on many things none of us would agree with, and is explicitly noted to be an invalid argument in other Wikipedia debates as at AfD ("many other articles ..."). There is no requirement in the licence for "simplest and most visable". Visibility is perfectly adequately provided in a normal reference, which is the obvious place to provide a link. Your approach provides details that the licence does not request, and fails to provide the link it does ask for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Two points, one I'm not using the "millions can't be wrong" arguement but rather attempting to point out how many IWM images are used on WP;- for many British artists, for whom the 70 year rule yet applies, the images made available because of the artists military or government service are often the only illustrations available. Giving the insitution responsible the fullest and most visable credit is a good thing and nothing to shy away from. The long format attributation, "the link it does ask for", is included on the Commons page for each image. The IWM image download page also specifies the short attribution is used. I'll shortly be off-line until Monday, so do have a nice weekend. Best regards,14GTR (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)