Talk:Terrace Park High School

Page move

When I created the title "Terrace Park High School (1913)", the idea was to simply identify and describe just the one building built in 1913 that is presently standing, but is no longer used as a high school but as part of an elementary school. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear to me that the name I selected was not the best name and was not what it was really called. After much thought, review of the historic names, and discussion with local historians, it was more clear to me that both the name they used, the name that comes up in records most frequently is "Terrace Park School." Unfortunately, I didn't know how to change the name on Wikipedia and you beat me to it. That was the name that held longest in village records and is probably more accurate than "Terrace Park High School." Can we agree on changing it to that name? If so, I think it might be necessary to create a separate entry for Terrace Park Elementary School, which partly includes this building, because Terrace Park Elementary school is a larger building. Let me know what you think.David Tornheim (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

When exactly was the large brick-and-glassblock "L" added? That might be something worth mentioning if a source can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

1950's. I think it is mentioned in the Rawmnsley article I believe, but possibly in some of the many other resources. It's come up a lot in discussion I have had with people regarding the demolition, so no question it is the 1950's. I doesn't interest me as much because it was not all that well constructed, not as historically interesting. It will be COMPLETELY demolished. Also, it was never part of the High School, only the elementary school. The gym, however, was added 1928 as was denifintely part of the high school. They will demolish it, but it will stay for the next couple of years. Tracking down all the sources for this information takes time. It's all relevant, so feel free to add it in, if you can find a verifiable source. David Tornheim (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IMAGES

Above you say you want an image. I do too. Of the outside -and- the insides. I have been working on that, but now I'm exhausted. A week of looking at the various pages about copyrights and request for GPLv3 and Wiki or Creative Commons licensing requirements is so dizzingly confusing--like getting patents--the easiest solution is to give up--and I don't give up easily either!

My friend took a bunch of pictures of the building AT MY REQUEST specifically for posting them on a public web-site like Wikipedia, so that people could see the building and its insides before the school district demolishes the inside. He posted them on Facebook, and granted me permission via e-mail to use them as planned, to educate others. I posted an image of the front of the building on the Wikipedia entry but a bot promptly deleted it. I told my friend I need more permission. He was furious: He gave me a lecture about the hours of work he had done traveling to and from the site, taking the images, uploading them (took forever), giving me permission to use the, and discussing it all, and how annoyed he was that I keep asking for more and he is just sick of it. He doesn't object to giving permission, he just doesn't want to have to spend any more TIME. And it's hard not to blame him when he DID give me permission already.

I told him the last step would be easy, I would do all the work, and he could copy & paste the appropriate e-mail granting the permission and send it back. But after reviewing the numerous Wikipedia postings about how to deal with images like this, the odds of my doing this right the first time seem slim to none, and even if I get it right, it may be months before the pictures are approved. One of the recommended methods might take him another to deal with--unacceptable. This is more work than filing the necessary documents to start a divorce lawsuit. I'm so overwhelmed and confused by the various methods and their uncertain prospect of success, the simplest path to a predictable outcome is to give up.

FYI, there is one image of the building on Flickr too:

Flickr photo of front

But it is protected of course! The other images I found for the article are supposed to be "public domain" whatever that is. But the posters are no more eager to deal with the rigamarole of the copyright than my friend is. I'm really bummed that Wikipedia has such prohibitively difficult standards for posting images.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on a method of getting these images up in such a way that I only need to send ONE e-mail to my friend that refers to his facebook postings and he doesn't have to attach the images. David Tornheim (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we can use the 1917 image without further permission. If it was originally published before 1923 it is in the public domain already. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you! That sounds very very doable. I'll look into it. Wikipedia needs a little flow chart with questions like, "Was the image published before ___?", so we don't waste time like this... I would be even willing to help create one if the people who know the rules best filled in the contents of each box. David Tornheim (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, hopefully you are right, based on that citation you gave. I independently looked and found this which seems to have another theory, but obviously there are so many exceptions that it's almost impossible to know without becoming a master of image copyright law...:

"Google images hosts a large repository of LIFE images, Time claims blanket copyright to everything but this is simply untrue. (see here and also see here) Anything more than 120 years old (i.e. - before 1889) is generally safe. (exception is if the original author died less than 75 years ago--45 years after these PD pictures have been taken--, the author lived in a state with Common_law_copyright, and the name of the author is known---and in that case Time itself is most likely in copyright violation.) You must remove the watermark if you use the larger image." -- from: WP:PD Image Resources, Historical Images — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Even better: The guy on Flickr gave it the Creative Commons license we need. All is good! David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)