User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/October

Asiaphile redirection

Instead of redirecting the page, explain what entries on the Asiaphile page is redundant compared to the Asian fetish page. Just writing that it's redundant and redirecting the page without any regards to the valid entries on the page is WP:VAN as you are removing valid contributions from wikipedia. Tkguy (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing this with you here. Bring it up at the article talk page, if you have anything new to say. --hippo43 (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hippo43/Archives/2009. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rugby union vs Rugby

Surely just about every rugby union player refers to it as just "rugby" unless differentiating it from rugby league? --MacRusgail (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not sure that makes it a nickname per se. Is 'rugby' really a nickname for rugby union? Or just a short name? Is 'football' a nickname for 'association football'? --hippo43 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Hippo. Thought I would let you know. I just noticed your name being brought up at ANI. Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. --hippo43 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Celtic, founded 1887 or 1888?

Hello, Hippo. I know that Celtic were formally constituted in 1887 which makes it a puzzle why the club held their centenary year in 1988 and the club badge shows 1888. Now, this may sound silly, but is there perhaps a difference between being constituted and founded? Would any other company consider themselves founded six months before starting the business they set out to be involved with? Questions I don't have an answer to, but there is certainly more to this than meets the eye. I have asked for some opinions on this at Talk:Association football. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for the message. I'm not sure about this one myself - I always thought 1888 was correct until a few years ago. I guess most companies/organisations would go with the date they got together and started the group, rather than when they first opened the shop, but I'm not sure. The badge and centenary are certainly significant.

Anyway, I just searched google for "celticfc.net" founded and found a couple of examples of the official site saying the club was founded in 1888! However, I think we should go with the club website's history page and the date they give. The wikipedia article is clear enough for me - it goes on to explain that the first game was in 1888. Maybe the confusion is based on the ambiguity of the word 'founded'. We don't need to use 'founded' in the infobox - if we use 'constituted', we have no problem. If we use 'first game' we have no problem. Or we can include both. --hippo43 (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved your discussion from the association football article to the football project talk page - WT:FOOTY#Celtic_F.C._founded_1887_or_1888. Hope you don't mind. --hippo43 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. Thanks, Hippo. Jack forbes (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Great Escape music

Hi! I noticed you removed the link to the youtube video of the theme music. Could you give me more details about your reason? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because, as I understand it, external links to copyrighted material (such as on Youtube) are generally not cool. I may be wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)r

I thought that might have been your reason, and that's reasonable regarding copyright material in general. In the case of that particular video The Great Escape Theme, it is apparently there with the approval of the copyright holder, and I'll try to explain that here.

First, here's an excerpt from WP:YOUTUBE.

Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.

YouTube has a tool for copyright holders and here's an excerpt from a description of its use.

The Content Identification tool is the latest device from YouTube, allowing copyright holders to identify and manage their content easily on YouTube. The tool creates ID files which are then run against user uploads and, if a match occurs, the copyright holder's policy preferences are then applied to that video. Rights owners can choose to block, track or monetise their content.[1]

In the case of the The Great Escape Theme, the copyright owner has chosen to monetise their content on Youtube, as evidenced by the momentary pop-up at the beginning of the video that advertises downloading The Great Escape music. It appears 10 seconds into the video and goes away 15 seconds later.

So I think in this case, the link to Youtube is OK because the copyright holder approves of the video being there. If you agree, could you restore it to the External links section? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, seems very likely to me, though I don't know if we can always assume that "advert = approval from copyright holder". Do you know if this kind of thing is specifically dealt with in policy anywhere on wikipedia? --hippo43 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re "dealt with in policy" - I don't think so, except for the section I referenced above that calls for deciding on a "case-by-case basis".

Re "I don't know if we can always assume that 'advert = approval from copyright holder' " - Seems like we can since the advert was apparently put up by the copyright holder. Do you have some situation in mind where advert $\neq$ approval from copyright holder? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really stressed about including it or not, since you pointed out the advert, but I think we should err on the side of caution. The reason I asked about policy was because it would seem like a very good addition to make to the policy, if we can be sure that "advert = approval".

As for "advert ≠ approval" - perhaps if Youtube had inserted the adverts to monetise the videos for their own benefit, rather than the copyright holder? --hippo43 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re "I'm not really stressed about including it or not" - I feel the same way. : )

Re "It would seem like a very good addition to make to the policy" - I agree.

Re "perhaps if Youtube had inserted the adverts to monetise the videos for their own benefit, rather than the copyright holder? " - As indicated by the excerpt above from Youtube, it was a choice by the copyright holder. Youtube got into enough trouble just letting users upload copyrighted material and I don't expect they would want to get into even more trouble by unauthorized selling of copyrighted material, which would probably be a criminal, rather than civil, offense. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole blurb from Youtube, but the excerpt above doesn't mention the adverts. I realise you're probably right in your assumption, but the excerpt doesn't say that 'appearance of an advert = choice made by copyright holder'. It doesn't mention the adverts, or even say that the content ID tool and the adverts are related. Other (also unlikely) hypothetical scenarios: the advert is added by the user uploading the video, or by a third-party (fourth-party?) retailer advertising on specific videos. --hippo43 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Farther down in the Youtube blurb "monetise" is explained.

"There are three usage policies - Block, Track and Monetise. If a rights owner specifies a Block policy, the video will not be viewable on YouTube. If the rights owner specifies a Track policy, the video will continue to be made available on YouTube and the rights owner will receive information about the video, such as how many views it receives. For a Monetise policy, the video will continue to be available on YouTube and ads will appear in conjunction with the video."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Does it say that the adverts will only appear if the owner has agreed to the material being there and being monetised? (Again, I'm sure you're probably right ...) --hippo43 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not specifically, as far as I know. Here's Youtube's policy,

"Whenever YouTube becomes aware that a video or any part of a video on our site infringes the copyrights of a third party, we will remove it from the site. We are required to do so by law."[2]

If those popup ads can only be placed with Youtube's approval, then this quote indicates that the video was authorized by the copyright holder, otherwise Youtube would knowingly violate their own policy. However, it does seem possible for a mischievous user to simulate a popup by putting it in the video that is uploaded, although the "buy song" link etc. wouldn't work. I expect that having a clickable link in the popup could only be done with Youtube's cooperation, and hence Youtube wouldn't allow it because that would bring to Youtube's attention the copyright infringing video. Thus, if a popup appears with clickable links, then the video is authorized by the copyright holder. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)