Jump to content

Talk:List of windmills in Warwickshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Packwood Windmill photo

[edit]
copied from User talk:J Milburn and User talk:Mjroots and formatted for readability

I've reverted the removal of the image from the List of windmills in Warwickshire. The photo (which is likely copyright expired, but I can't positively identify it as such) is the only evidence so far of the mill's existence, which is why it is necessary to display it in the list. There is a website which might provide more details of the mill, but you have to sign in to access it, which makes it unusable for reference purposes. The image is of low resolution, and has a correct rationale. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this postcard is the only evidence of its existence, it should not be included in the list anyway, as a postcard is not a reliable source (on another note, the fact you have to sign in does not make a source any more or less reliable- sure, it's less accessible, but it's more accessible than, say, out of print books). Unless the content can be demonstrated to be out of copyright, it must be assumed to be in copyright, and so must meet our non-free content criteria. I'm afraid illustrating a single mention in a long list does not meet our non-free content criteria. So, if the image is being used as a reference, the entire entry in the list should be removed us unreferenced, while if the image is being used as an illustration, it should be removed for not meeting the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by a photograph not being a reliable source. In this case, I claim that the Packwood windmill which is not standing today was a post mill. The photograph/postcard provides positive proof of this claim. What is unreliable about that? The person who published the postcard is now deceased, so I'm unable to ask further details from him. There isn't a {{cite postcard}} to use as a reference, is there? Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm meaning that the source is not reliable per the reliable sources guidelines. Pictures make dubious sources anyway, but as this was never published in an informative fashion... J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you believe this photo shouldn't be in the article, while I believe it should. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that I'm right. Where would be the best place for this to be discussed at a community-wide level? Could you either point me to a suitable place or raise the issue there and let me know? If consensus is that the photo shouldn't be in the list I'll have to find another way around the problem. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a single image like this, the best place would probably technically be files for deletion, but I doubt it would get much attention. Perhaps we could raise it on the non-free content talk page? I admit, this is a rather unusual case. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure about WP:FFD. Maybe WP:3O would be better. Sure, we have a disagreement, but there's WP:AGF on this side, and I'd hope that the same applies on your side. The "dispute" is between us two only, so it would fit the criteria for that page. What do you say, is this a better place to raise the issue? Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always a little dubious about the third opinion process, but I'm a third eye could shed some light on the issue. If considered non-binding, more thoughts on a subject are always a good thing. I'll ask on IRC, see if anyone is willing to offer a third opinion. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
end of copied comments, please post new replies below

Discussion

[edit]

This image illustrates basic flaws in advice documents rather than their interpretation. This image is an excellent primary source, showing to any student of windmills more information than any text document ever could provide. This is not my field, but from this image I can see that the mill is a postmill with 4 sweeps- that there are no automatic self furling devices. With other images for comparison, the architect could be detected. If there was a date then it would tell me information about the prosperity of the area. Looking at the nature of the article, which is a complete list of wind mills in an English county, File:Balsall Common Mill, Berkswell.jpg is an example of a poor encyclopedic photograph as it gives little information about the smock. So looking at the arguments given, lets see what we can do to resolve them.

  • Firstly, it is said that a postcard is not a reliable source. The guidelines say:

The two test are passed here by the acknowledged expert in this field. In the field of picture postcard of UK landmarks, I know of no scams or misattributions. It may be different in the field of disc sleeves and music film or theatre but that should not cloud our judgement here. The solution is to modify the guidelines so postcards are included.

  • Secondly, there is no argument: this image is non-free- and has a rationale
  • Thirdly, it is said that I'm afraid illustrating a single mention in a long list does not meet our non-free content criteria.. This is serious, and flags up that either the interpretation of non-free criteria need reassessing, or the criteria need to be reassessed.
  • Fourthly, interpretation Wikipedia:Non-free content

Editors are required to attempt to follow the guideline. This has been done here, It is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception This has been done here. The interpretation should be read that certain pages will be exceptions. Following the page: The Nutshell lays down four points- all of which are complied with. The WP policy quoted makes it clear that ten criteria must be fulfilled. They all have been. Policy says that WP policy is stricter than US fair-use, this does not mean that interpretation of policy should be stricter than the policy itself.

  • Fifthly, though understanding that, under US law, decisions should be made on a case by case basis do think that it is time that WP recodified its fair use recommendations. For the last 6 month there have been numerous arguments made on the non-free content talk page, where the interpretation adopted has been logically destroyed. Each time there has been no change made, and the discussion is archived only to reemerge be rediscussed and rearchived. Sadly the arguments made against this image have been used before. It is time to rewrite the guidelines page taking into account all the archived discussions

With WP:AGF --ClemRutter (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Shrewley Common Mill had four common sails, an iron sheeted roof, open trestle and a tailpole. View of it derelict is here [1]. Shrewley Common is 4 miles from Packwood House. It's difficult to compare the two photos, there's a window at Packwood which seems to be in the same place at Shrewley, and a seam in the weatherboarding to the rear. The quarter bars look thinner at Packwood, but they're painted white, which might have an effect. Ning-ning (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the mill is Shrewley, then the photo is copyright expired, as the sails of Shrewley windmill were blown off in 1895. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One argument used against the use of the photograph was given by J Milburn in the edit summary Free images only, please. Image would be useful in an article about the mill itself, but is overkill on a list article. It there any such policy that one cannot use a "fair-use" photo in a list? Mjroots (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a particular policy regarding images in lists per se. One editor last year spent a lot of time larding several lists with unnecessary photos, which in most cases were removed- but no-one quoted any policy. It's possible an argument could be made that by bundling "fair-use" and copyright-free images together on one page it could undermine the status of the "fair-use" images. The Packwood postcard looks like it's been copied from a newspaper article (prominent dot screen). Ning-ning (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was scanned from the actual postcard, then cropped to remove text, then the resulting crop reduced to 25% of original size. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- didn't mean you scanned it from a newspaper. I think the Croydon publishers did so. Seaby's booklet of 1977 mentions some photos in the Coventry Herald of 1925, but they seem to have been taken in 1924. The coarse screening and whiting out of the sky suggest a newspaper origin. Your image of Shrewley shows one of the quarter bars to be warped, in the same way as "Packwood"- I think it is Shrewley. Ning-ning (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you apply the criterion of whose original work it is, then the copyright would be vested in the publishers of the newspaper or magazine from which the postcard was derived. There's no significant modification made by the postcard publishers to the image, which means it doesn't have copyright protection either in U.S. or U.K. law. Ning-ning (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) OK, let's compare the two:-

"Packwood" Shrewley
Post mill Post mill
Cast iron windshaft cast iron windshaft
Four Common sails Four Common sails
one quarterbar has a distinctive bow outwards one quarterbar has a distinctive bow outwards
roof covered in sheet metal roof covered in sheet metal

It's looking like the mill may well be Shrewley. In which case the picture is out of copyright. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation- Collectorcard of Croydon published a slavish copy of an original copy of an original photograph. Copyright is vested in the original photograph and the original copy (because of the preparation for printing), but not in the postcard. Since the first is time-expired and the second presumably time-expired, there's no copyright on the image at all. This link [2] is a slavish copy of the same card, and not copyrightable. My interpretation of this is that any image published which is a slavish copy of an out-of-copyright original can be used in the public domain. Ning-ning (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for J Milburn to get back online and respond. If consensus is that the mill is Shrewley I'll upload the picture to Commons and ask for the file to be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at all on whether this is or is not the mill in question, but I cannot leave the comments above about our NFC guidelines without a reply. Yes, guidelines can have occasional exceptions, but merely citing that fact does not make this article into one of the exceptions. Further, the questions about the list is covered by point 8 of the non-free content criteria. It is confirmed through the very standard practice of removing character images from character lists, album covers from discographies and screenshots from episode lists- all of these were established as our NFC policies became a little more strict a couple of years ago. This was established through very lengthy discussion- people quickly found that though there was support for heavier usage, there wasn't really much sense to it. Before that, pretty much anything went. Trying to argue that the use of this image passes the NFCC will get you nowhere, as it simply doesn't. Nor do I see a need for a change in policy- our current policy reflects the fact that we should use non-free content as a last resort. In any case, here is not the place to discuss a change in policy. The only possible reason that this image would be acceptable would be if it was deemed that it was required as a source- I am not as familiar with our reliable source/original research guidelines/practices as I am with the NFC issues, but, as I see it, this source is not reliable. If a postcard is the only reference to a certain mill, why on Earth is it worth including in an encyclopedia? J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph is proof positive that a mill existed, and also of it's type. Its value is in assisting a list of windmills to be as comprehensive as possible. There are many instances of "windmill hill", "windmill field" etc. I've left these out of the lists as they are not positive proof of the existence of an individual windmill. A few mill sites are only known from archaeological excavations. There are included as there is definite evidence of their existence. The marking of a windmill on a map is also taken as proof positive. It has been established at WP:RSN that using the photograph to state that the mill was a post mill is not WP:OR. It looks very much that the mill is Shrewley, and thus out of copyright. I'll upload a new version to Commons and ask for the existing file to be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using a published photo as as reference to certain features of the mill is fair enough, but we should only be concerned with mills that have published information- I respect the fact that you're probably quite an expert on these mills, but Wikipedia is concerned with what can be verified, rather than what is actually true. I've come up against similar barriers when writing about my local area- I know a lot of things that just can't be included, due to the lack of any mention in decent sources. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had same problem. See Talk:List of windmills in Kent. I know that there was another windmill in Tonbridge, but I can't find a source to back this up, although it does exist somewhere. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_windmills_in_Warwickshire&oldid=1203704276"