This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
WP:EL#cite_note-7. I removed the links once here and here, and left edit summaries explaining why. There's no need to add a url link to the Wikimedia Commons file because (1) that is not how files from Wikimedia Commons are added to articles and (2) the file is already being displayed in the Tragic Prelude#Curry's description section. There's also no need to add link for the east wall photo because that a link showing that is already found in the Tragic Prelude#External links section; the article doesn't need three external links to the same website. I'm assuming that you just didn't notice that the links had been removed and the edit summaries explaining why, but now that you do please don't re-add them again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I did notice that the links were removed and I read your edit summaries. I'm asking you to make an exception here. It's important and there isn't a better option that I see. The problem is not the Commons image, it's the external link to the picture of the east wall.
There is no public domain image showing the entire mural. I'm sure of that.
You can't discuss a famous, influential work of art, one that there's a whole book about, and require readers to find a link to one wall of it in an external link at the end. It's much more important than an external link.
Please reconsider. deisenbe (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You re-added the links without addressing the reasons why they were removed or even acknowleging why they were removed. When you do something like this, other editors are going to assume either (1) you didn't notice the links had been removed or (2) you did notice but just
WP:PERMISSION) and see if they would be willing to release this photo or perhaps another phote they might have of the wall under a free license so that it can be uploaded to Commons. Sometimes a copyright holder will agree to do such a thing. They might not even have to upload anything at all. All they would need to do is to attach a free license to the photo on their website per c:COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary, and then someone else could upload it for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
