So Long, and Thanks for all the comments

[replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responding to - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]

copyright on Shuttlecock photo?

@Reddi: Did you get legal permission from whomever owns the copyrights to the File:Shuttlecock - Nelson Art Gallery.png to release a photo of that art under a free license?

Please excuse, but my reading of Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US says that the copyright owners of public art like the giant Shuttlecocks do not relinquish their ownership of the copyright by installing it for public viewing, especially anything first displayed 1989-03-01 or later. Per Linten (2010), these giant shuttlecocks were installed 1994-07.

I think all changes to US copyright law since 1970 have been monuments to political corruption. However, another nonprofit with which I'm associated just got demand letters for $1,200 each for two photographs on their website without copyright permission. I'm concerned that WMF could be sued big time if this photo were distributed claiming that we have a right to distribute an image like this when we do NOT have such a right. US copyright law is complicated. The artists who created those sculptures may retain the copyrights and may only have sold the sculptures to the Nelson.

I'm not making this up. At my suggestion, Stephanie Kelton tried to post a photo of her to Wikimedia Commons; it was rejected, because it had been taken by a professional photographer, and Stephanie could not prove she owned the copyright: She may have bought only the print.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

okay so looking into all this I think I get your point. Thanks for raising this. I took the photo myself, but I think understand the issue you’re pointing out — U.S. freedom‑of‑panorama doesn’t cover copyrighted sculptures like the Shuttlecocks. If this means the file isn’t eligible for Commons under current policy, I’m fine with whatever action is appropriate. Let me know if there’s anything you need from me J. D. Redding 14:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Christopher Linton (18 October 2010). "World's Largest Shuttlecocks: Four 18-foot-tall badminton shuttlecocks lie scattered about the lawn of a Kansas City museum". Atlas Obscura. Wikidata Q137797098.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

for what it's worth I took this picture this is my picture it seems like an eon ago but yeah I live in the city there so I took it with my old camera I don't even remember I used to have a floppy disk drive I love that camera J. D. Redding 13:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your objection is

So maybe if you delineate a little better, I would know J. D. Redding 13:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

and I don't ever remember uploading it to wiki Commons I uploaded it to the encyclopedia locally. Wikipedia version can remain under fair use. J. D. Redding 13:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I took the photo myself, but I understand now that U.S. freedom‑of‑panorama doesn’t allow freely licensed photos of copyrighted sculptures like the Shuttlecocks. I also didn’t realize this had been uploaded to Commons — I originally uploaded it locally to Wikipedia back in 2007.If the Commons version needs to be deleted under current policy, I’m completely fine with that. And if that happens, the Wikipedia version can be handled under normal non‑free content rules. Let me know if there’s anything else you need from me. J. D. Redding 14:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for the clarification. I’ll leave it in your hands. J. D. Redding 14:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

"List of protoscience" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of protoscience has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 29 § List of protoscience until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Computational irreducibility

The article Computational irreducibility has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wolfram's original research, without independant secondary source

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. D.Lazard (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)