Talk:Football: Atlético Madrid beats Marseille 3-0 to win third Europa League title
Add topicLede paragraph
[edit]Why is there so much focus on previous Europa League finals in this paragraph. Also, it is confusing, it makes it look like Atletico and Marseille played each other three times, which I believe is not the case, they just happen to both have reached the finals three times. I would prefer a lede that concentrated more on the focal event. --SVTCobra 11:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- As the headline suggests, the focus is not Atléti winning the trophy, but winning it for the third time; just like the undecima article mentioned "eleventh" in the lede or the decima article mentioned "tenth" in the lede.
•–• 11:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Images
[edit]First, I don't see anything wrong with portraits of athletes. But secondly, this edit summary: "licence requirements -- don't bother adding images to my articles if licence link is not explicitly mentioned" seems to show a lack of understanding that articles belong to Wikinews, not the author. And P.S. it is not a requirement of CC-BY licenses; if you want to add that, I'm not going to stop you. But you can't make me do it for you. --SVTCobra 13:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Of the many things an author can control, including sub-dialect, style, flow, and caption I am saying what I can. By the way, "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made." Don't make re-users hunt for the licence. See how Create Commons mentioned the link. In all fairness, I am still the author of the content, and I can even prove it for almost every article I have written the last eighteen months. Articles do not belong to Wikinews, Wikinews is just one of the places it is published on, and Wikinews can curate the content. Unlike Wikinews, I can release the content in any licence, let it be more "free" or less "free" licence. But if you still have a problem when I said "my articles" -- I will reword that for you -- "articles where I am the main or major contributor".
•–• 15:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)- I don't care how Creative Commons does it. The simple fact that our images are clickable and all of the license and author information is available there satisfies all legal requirements. Even our practice of crediting the author in the caption is overkill, strictly speaking. "Hunt for the license" you say. It is literally one click away. Why would I do all that work to save someone one click? BTW, the author does not have creative control over style. We have a style guide which is official policy. You can add the license if you want. I'm just saying, it's not my job. --SVTCobra 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can tell you what I did do, however. I went to Commons, checked their license and author, noticed they had the author wrong, and fixed it over there. I think I did more than enough to make sure no rights were being violated. --SVTCobra 15:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, as the license says the attribution must have a link to license -- they don't say the file page should have the licence link. If you don't want to do it, either write a mail to Creative Commons asking them to explain that part (oh, wait! I already did that) or give them an example of what is Wikipedia is doing, ask tell them to clarify the sentence. But if you can't, then use media licensed under licences with do not ask for link to licences. If it is not your job, it is not your job, then it is not your job to add images (but I can't possibly stop anyone from editing it). Authors wrote the SG, so in a way, they control the style, subject to endorsement by other authors and a more complex process behind it.
•–• 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)- Advantage of mentioning licence and link to original file is that it prevents the harm done by vandalism of one file page. It would not give misleading information; and I guess that was the motivation of Creative Commons for mentioning it in the license.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Advantage of mentioning licence and link to original file is that it prevents the harm done by vandalism of one file page. It would not give misleading information; and I guess that was the motivation of Creative Commons for mentioning it in the license.
- Well, as the license says the attribution must have a link to license -- they don't say the file page should have the licence link. If you don't want to do it, either write a mail to Creative Commons asking them to explain that part (oh, wait! I already did that) or give them an example of what is Wikipedia is doing, ask tell them to clarify the sentence. But if you can't, then use media licensed under licences with do not ask for link to licences. If it is not your job, it is not your job, then it is not your job to add images (but I can't possibly stop anyone from editing it). Authors wrote the SG, so in a way, they control the style, subject to endorsement by other authors and a more complex process behind it.
- I can tell you what I did do, however. I went to Commons, checked their license and author, noticed they had the author wrong, and fixed it over there. I think I did more than enough to make sure no rights were being violated. --SVTCobra 15:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care how Creative Commons does it. The simple fact that our images are clickable and all of the license and author information is available there satisfies all legal requirements. Even our practice of crediting the author in the caption is overkill, strictly speaking. "Hunt for the license" you say. It is literally one click away. Why would I do all that work to save someone one click? BTW, the author does not have creative control over style. We have a style guide which is official policy. You can add the license if you want. I'm just saying, it's not my job. --SVTCobra 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Review of revision 4407266 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4407266 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4407266 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |